LETTERS to the Editor

To the editor,

On Feb. 21, Wisconsin voters will be asked to choose one of four legal minds to advance to the Supreme Court general election on April 4. Only one of the four candidates has had previous experience on the state’s highest court, former Justice Dan Kelly. The remaining judges have experience in criminal or civil courts. Should that matter?

Objectively, no. But during recent public forums, judicial philosophies differed. Those running with progressive backing revealed a “Living Document” perspective of constitutional law, and that’s concerning for the people of Wisconsin.

Supreme courts exist to examine and analyze legislated laws challenged for their adherence or non-adherence to our Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions; not to determine if those laws seem “fair” or “unfavorable” to minority or marginalized people, groups, or businesses. It’s up to legislatures to revise poorly written laws; or, if constitutionally protected rights have been violated, lower courts to rectify their challenged rulings.

Both conservative judicial candidates Dan Kelly and Jennifer Dorow understand that their responsibility will not be to rule according to their personal preferences about issues such as gun ownership, social welfare eligibilities, recreational marijuana legalization, bail guidelines, or state adherence to federal agency regulations. Emotions and personal opinions are to be put aside.

Concerned about who steps into Wisconsin’s open Supreme Court seat on April 5? Only two candidates understand what will and won’t be their legal responsibility. Vote accordingly in the Primary on Tuesday, Feb. 21.

Don’t let other voters choose for you what’s best for Wisconsin.

Donna O’Keefe River Falls Township