democracy in Wisconsin

:link:

Quote:

After Wisconsinites vote to amend the state constitution to change how the state supreme court's chief justice is selected, Shirley Abrahamson sues in federal court to keep her position under the old provision. Under the old provision, Abrahamson was entitled to the position because she is the most senior member of the court. Under the amendment we voted for in yesterday's election, the justices elect their own chief. What is the federal question that allows this to be heard in federal court? To have the selection process change immediately would shorten the term of office to which Abrahamson was elected, she argued, and would therefore violate her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection rights. She also asks the court to block the other six justices on the court from taking any action to remove her as chief justice. Earlier Wednesday, before Abrahamson filed the lawsuit, Justice Pat Roggensack told The Associated Press that she hoped to meet "quite soon" to discuss how to proceed following the amendment's adoption.... ADDED: On reading this, Meade said: "I think what should be said is that this changed the terms of her office, not the term of her office." (That is, voters elected her to serve as a justice for a 10-year term, and under the old provision, by virtue of her seniority, she would be chief. Under the new provision, the terms of her job have changed, so that seniority does not entail service as chief, but the justices get to vote for a chief. Her term is the same: 10 years.) AND: As they say in Wisconsin (sometimes!): This is what democracy looks like.

democracy in Wisconsin