Annette Ziegler
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Tenure
Term ends
Years in position
Contact
Annette Ziegler is a judge of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She assumed office on August 1, 2007. Her current term ends on July 31, 2027.
Ziegler was elected by her peers to succeed Patience Roggensack as chief justice of the court. Her term as chief began on May 1, 2021, and ended April 30, 2023.[1]
Ziegler first became a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court through a nonpartisan election. She was first elected to the court in 2007 to the seat vacated by Jon P. Wilson. Ziegler became chief justice on May 1, 2021, succeeding Patience Roggensack.[2] To read more about judicial selection in Wisconsin, click here.
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country. As part of this study, we assigned each justice a Confidence Score describing our confidence in the degree of partisanship exhibited by the justices' past partisan behavior, before they joined the court.[3] Dallet received a confidence score of Mild Republican.[4] Click here to read more about this study.
Biography
Ziegler received her B.A. in psychology and business administration from Hope College in 1986 and her J.D. from Marquette University Law School in 1989. After graduating from law school, Ziegler entered private practice. In 1992, she became a pro bono special district attorney in Milwaukee County. Four years later, she was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In 1997, Ziegler was appointed to the Washington County Circuit Court. She was serving in this capacity when she was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[5]
Elections
2017
- See also: Wisconsin judicial elections, 2017
Justice Ziegler filed to stand for re-election in 2017 in order to serve for another term.[6] She ran unopposed and therefore did not appear on the primary ballot.
2007
On April 3, 2007, Ziegler defeated Linda M. Clifford in the election, winning 58.61 percent of the vote.[7]
For a breakdown of Judge Ziegler's campaign finances in 2007, see her "Follow the Money" page.
1997
Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) appointed Ziegler to the Washington County Circuit Court in 1997. She was then re-elected to the circuit court in 1998 and 2004 in nonpartisan elections.[5]
Political contributions
According to campaign finance records, when making donations in her name only, Ziegler limited her donations to nonpartisan candidates also running for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.[8]
| Year
|
Race
|
Candidate
|
Contribution
|
Won/Lost
|
| 1999
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
|
Shirley Abrahamson
|
$100
|
Won
|
| 2000
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
|
Diane Sykes
|
$100
|
Won
|
| 2003
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
|
Edward Brunner
|
$4
|
Lost
|
| 2007
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
|
Annette Ziegler (self)
|
$822,996
|
Won
|
Political donors
The following table includes the five organizations that donated the most to Ziegler's campaign in her 2007 election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to publicly available campaign finance records.[8]
| Donor
|
Contribution
|
| Koch Industries
|
$8,625
|
| Wisconsin Realtor's Association
|
$8,625
|
| Wisconsin Builder's Association
|
$8,625
|
| Pfizer
|
$5,000
|
| Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors
|
$5,000
|
Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)
- See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship and Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.
The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on an ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. The scores were based on seven factors, including but not limited to party registration.[9]
The five resulting categories of Confidence Scores were:
- Strong Democrat
- Mild Democrat
- Indeterminate[10]
- Mild Republican
- Strong Republican
This justice's Confidence Score, as well as the factors contributing to that score, is presented below. The information below was current as of June 2020.
Annette
Ziegler
Wisconsin
- Partisan Confidence Score:
Mild Republican
- Judicial Selection Method:
Elected
- Key Factors:
- Donated less than $2,000 to Republican candidates
- Received donations from Republican-affiliated individuals or organizations
Partisan ProfileDetails:Ziegler donated $100 to the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Koch Industries contributed $8,625 to her campaign, and Wisconsin Realtor's Association contributed $8,625 to her campaign, both of which contribute to Republican political campaigns more often than Democratic campaigns.
Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)
- See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.
Ziegler received a campaign finance score of 1.25, indicating a conservative ideological leaning. This was more conservative than the average score of 0.42 that justices received in Wisconsin.
The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.[11]
Financial disclosure
- See also: Center for Public Integrity Study on State Supreme Court Disclosure Requirements
A 2013 study by the Center for Public Integrity on financial disclosure requirements for state supreme court justices found that Ziegler participated in a 2012 decision involving Merck and Co. and Johnson and Johnson in spite of owning more than $50,000 in stock in each company. The court ruled against the companies on two of the three legal questions presented in the appeal.[12]
In 2007, Ziegler was warned by a state commission about conflicts of interest in her work for a lower court. It was reported that she had presided in more than 22 cases involving companies in which she owned stock. At the time, she apologized for the ethical violations and claimed they were not intentional.[12]
Wisconsin earned an "F" in the study.[12]
State supreme court judicial selection in Wisconsin
- See also: Judicial selection in Wisconsin
The seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are elected in statewide nonpartisan elections. Judges serve ten-year terms, and to remain on the court, they must run for re-election after their term expires. Only one seat may be elected in any year, and more than two candidates for each seat must file to have a primary.[13][14]
Qualifications
To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:
- licensed to practice law in Wisconsin for a minimum of five years immediately prior to election or appointment[15]
Chief justice
The chief justice of the court is selected by peer vote for a term of two years.
Vacancies
- See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts
In the event of a vacancy on the court, the governor has the power and duty to appoint an individual to the vacancy. The governor screens judicial applicants using an advisory council on judicial selection. The council recommends three to five candidates to the governor, although the governor is not bound by their recommendations. The appointed justice must then stand for election in the first subsequent year in which no other justice's term expires.[14][13][16]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Wisconsin Supreme Court finds state legislative maps in violation of the state constitution (2023)
Justice Annette Ziegler sided with the dissenting opinion in this case. In a 4-3 decision on Dec. 22, 2023, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state’s legislative maps violated the state constitution and ordered the state to draw new maps for the 2024 elections. The justice wrote the following in their majority opinion:[17]
| “
|
We hold that the contiguity requirements in Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 mean what they say: Wisconsin's state legislative districts must be composed of physically adjoining territory. The constitutional text and our precedent support this common-sense interpretation of contiguity. Because the current state legislative districts contain separate, detached territory and therefore violate the constitution's contiguity requirements, we enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from using the current legislative maps in future elections ... Because we enjoin the current state legislative district maps from future use, remedial maps must be drawn prior to the 2024 elections.[18][19]
|
”
|
The original petitioners argued that Wisconsin’s legislative districts violated multiple provisions of the state constitution, including equal protection, freedom of speech and association, separation of powers, and contiguous legislative districts. The state's legislative maps were ordered to be enacted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April 2022 after the governor vetoed them and the state legislature failed to override that veto.[17]
Articles:
Wisconsin Supreme Court affirms agency authority to regulate state water resources (2021)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on July 8 issued decisions in two environmental cases that had pitted the state legislature against the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in a disagreement over which government entity had the authority to regulate water pollution and irrigation practices. In both cases, the court held 4-2 that the DNR was authorized to restrict permits in order to protect the state’s water resources.[20][21][22]
The pair of cases, both initiated by Clean Wisconsin Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District, centered on Wisconsin Act 21—a 2011 law that limited state agency authority by prohibiting state agencies from taking actions not specifically authorized by the state legislature.[20]
The first case concerned an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order that the DNR limit the size of a dairy herd causing nearby groundwater contamination. The DNR under then-Governor Scott Walker (R) did not enforce the ALJ’s directive, arguing that Act 21 prohibited the agency from carrying out the order.[20][21]
A Dane County Circuit Court judge in 2016 affirmed the DNR's authority to limit the size of the dairy herd to address water pollution. The DNR appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The DNR under Governor Tony Evers (D) later changed its position and claimed regulatory authority in the case.[20][21]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the circuit court's decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Jill Karofsky wrote, "We conclude that an agency may rely upon a grant of authority that is explicit but broad when undertaking agency action, and such an explicit but broad grant of authority complies with [Act 21]."[20][21]
In the second case, challengers sued the DNR seeking stricter enforcement of regulations regarding large-scale water withdrawals for irrigation. Challengers claimed that the agency failed to consider the cumulative negative impact on water levels in nearby lakes and streams when it issued permits for nine high-capacity wells. As in the previous case, the DNR argued that Act 21 prevented the agency from considering the cumulative impact of the new wells.[20][22]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court again affirmed the circuit court's decision in the case, holding that the DNR erroneously claimed that it lacked regulatory authority. Writing for the majority, Justice Rebecca Dallet stated, "The DNR's authority to consider the environmental effects of proposed high capacity wells, while broad, is nevertheless explicitly permitted by statute."[20][22]
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler joined Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, and Jill Karofsky in both majority opinions. Justice Brian Hagedorn did not participate in the case.[20][21][22]
Justices Rebecca Bradley and Patience Roggensack dissented, arguing in part: “Elevating its environmental policy preferences over the legislature's prerogative to reclaim its constitutional authority, the majority distorts the plain language of [Act 21] to achieve its own ends."[20][21][22]
See also
External links
- ↑ Wisconsin Public Radio, "Annette Ziegler Elected Chief Justice Of Wisconsin Supreme Court," April 14, 2021
- ↑ WisPolitics.com, "Ziegler pledges fair, efficient Supreme Court as she preps for chief justice role," April 14, 2021
- ↑ We calculated confidence scores by collecting several data points such as party registration, donations, and previous political campaigns.
- ↑ The five possible confidence scores were: Strong Democrat, Mild Democrat, Indeterminate, Mild Republican, and Strong Republican.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Wisconsin Court System, "Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ 2017-2018 Wisconsin Blue Book, "Election results," accessed July 30, 2021
- ↑ 2007-2008 Wisconsin Blue Book, "Election results," accessed July 30, 2021
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Follow the Money, "Annette Ziegler," accessed July 8, 2016
- ↑ The seven factors were party registration, donations made to partisan candidates, donations made to political parties, donations received from political parties or bodies with clear political affiliation, participation in political campaigns, the partisanship of the body responsible for appointing the justice, and state trifecta status when the justice joined the court.
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Center for Public Integrity "State supreme court judges reveal scant financial information," December 4, 2013
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection," accessed August 12, 2021
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 4: pg.10) Cite error: Invalid
<ref> tag; name "section4" defined multiple times with different content
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "Wisconsin Constitution," accessed September 19, 2014 (Article VII, Section 24: pg.11)
- ↑ Wisconsin State Legislature, "8.50 - Special elections," accessed April 19, 2023
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 Democracy Docket, "Wisconsin Legislative Redistricting Challenge (Clarke)," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Case No. 2023AP1399-OA," accessed January 2, 2024
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 Wisconsin Public Radio, "Wisconsin Supreme Court Affirms DNR Authority To Restrict, Deny Farm Permits To Protect Water," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc., Lynda Cochart, Amy Cochart, Roger DeJardin, Sandra Winnemueller and Chad Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 Wisconsin Supreme Court, "Clean Wisconsin, Inc. and Pleasant Lake Management District v. Wisconsin Departement of Natural Resources," July 8, 2021
