Try 1 month for 99¢
Supreme Court mashup

Madison attorney Tim Burns, Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet and Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock are competing in a three-way primary on Feb. 20 in this year's race for a seat on the Supreme Court.

It’s election day in Wisconsin. Primary elections at the state, county and municipal levels will set up April races for seats on town boards, village boards, school boards, city councils and county boards, as well as circuit court judgeships and a position on the state Supreme Court bench.

February primaries tend to attract low turnouts. But we hope this one is different.

Every Wisconsinite, no matter where they live, can vote in the primary for state Supreme Court.

There are three candidates in the race. Two of them — Middleton attorney Tim Burns and Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet — are qualified and conscientious contenders.

The third candidate, Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock, is an insider who is running with the enthusiastic endorsement of the National Rifle Association’s political operation. On the day before a gunman murdered 17 students, teachers and coaches at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Chris W. Cox, the chairman of the Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the NRA, personally praised Screnock’s candidacy.

An NRA-ILA mailing obtained by the group One Wisconsin Now identified Screnock as “the candidate who has committed” to the group’s agenda. After the endorsement from the NRA group was announced, the group One Wisconsin Now asked: “What Did Michael Screnock Promise the NRA?”

Appreciate these insights? Get Cap Times opinion sent daily to your inbox

Voters should keep Screnock’s commitment to the NRA in mind as they cast ballots. The NRA has too much influence in the executive and legislative branches at the federal and state levels. Do we really need a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is “committed” to the NRA agenda?

This is about more than gun-related issues that might come before the court. Because Screnock has been resistant to proposals to establish sensible recusal standards for justices, the notion that he is running around making commitments to special-interest groups should be disqualifying.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Subscribe to Breaking News

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.