Only one official has ever been impeached in Wisconsin history: state circuit judge Levi Hubbell, in 1853—he was not convicted.
This power is defined in Article VII, Section 13, of the constitution, which reads: Any justice or judge may be removed from office by address of both chambers of the legislature, if two−thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein, but no removal shall be made by virtue of this section unless the justice or judge complained of is served with a copy of the charges, as the ground of address, and has had an opportunity of being heard.
The section reads: Each justice or judge shall be subject to reprimand, censure, suspension, removal for cause or for disability, by the supreme court pursuant to procedures established by the legislature by law.
[1] Current law also requires that any removal for cause or disability must begin with an investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, with the accused being allowed to respond to allegations, followed by a hearing before a jury or a panel of judges.
[1] Wisconsin's constitution was amended in 1926 to add Section 12 of Article XIII, allowing for citizen-initiated recall of any elected official of state government after the first year of their term has concluded.
[5][6] On January 18, 1853, Ryan told Caleb Cushing that impeachment charges that had been "drawn under the direction of myself and other gentlemen here" had been authored.
[5] Hubbell was accused by Ryan of having accepted bribes and having heard cases in circuit court on matters in which he had a personal financial interest.
Historian and reporter A. M. Thompson observed that the trial, "was not an occasion that called for any display of partisanship, and none was shown.
They argued that in order to be corrupt conduct or crimes and misdemeanors rising to removal, each alleged act would need to be clearly proven; would have been committed with malicious or guilty intent; and would need to be wrongful, illegal, or unconstitutional.
Seven of the eleven charges received unanimous acquittal, while the reminder saw a share of senators consider Hubbell guilty.
[4][6][9] Lawyer and historian Joseph A. Ranney opined that, "Many people at the time felt Ryan went too far in his crusade against Hubbell, but in the long run he may have helped save Wisconsin's justice system from permanent damage", opining that the trial, "made clear that Hubbell's conduct had been far from exemplary and that in future judges would be expected to act impartially both in and outside the courtroom.
[10][11] Within days of her election in April 2023,[12] and increasing in August 2023 (the month she took office, and before she had even heard a single case), notable Republicans in Wisconsin—including State Assembly speaker Robin Vos and former governor Scott Walker—discussed the idea of impeaching liberal justice Janet Protasiewicz.
[13][14] This impeachment effort was widely viewed as motivated by Republican concern about the court's new liberal majority potentially ruling the state's gerrymander to be unconstitutional.
Reid J. Epstein of The New York Times noted, As at the U.S. Supreme Court, recusal decisions are left to the Wisconsin justices themselves.
In years past, conservative justices have argued that personal views they had previously stated did not mean they were required to recuse themselves from relevant cases.
The issue quickly gathered national attention, and state Democrats began mobilizing to defend Protasiewicz and fight against impeachment.
[15] After the initial pushback, Assembly speaker Robin Vos announced the creation of a panel of former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices that would investigate criteria for an impeachment.
In my view, there is no assurance that two-thirds of the present "court" would be convinced that they are bound "impartially" by the "evidence" to vote for impeachment.
[18] In late December 2023, Vos finally confirmed that the Assembly was unlikely to launch an impeachment of Protasiewicz over the redistricting case.
Her primary role is to issue non-binding advisory opinions to the local clerks on questions about the law or the decisions voted on by the six elections commissioners.
[21] Kaul sued in state court to clarify Wolfe's legal status, which ultimately saw lawyers for legislative Republicans admitting that their vote of disapproval had been merely "symbolic".
[24] Brandtjen had been steeped in the right wing conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, which led to her being sanctioned by the Assembly Republican caucus and removed from her committee chairmanship in 2022.
[25] In late October 2023, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Michael Gableman echoed Brandtjen's complaints, suggesting that Wisconsin Assembly speaker Robin Vos should be recalled from office or face a primary challenge if he did not move an impeachment forward.
Days after Gableman's statements, a right wing PAC calling itself the "Wisconsin Elections Committee", echoed Gableman's demands with an $80,000 ad purchase in southeast Wisconsin, threatening Vos with a recall and primary challenge if he did not advance articles of impeachment against Meagan Wolfe.
"[28] The promised publicity campaign was promptly launched in southwest Wisconsin,[29] where advertisements were run and direct mail was sent.
Don Millis (Vos' appointee to the Wisconsin Elections Commission) issued a strong public defense of Wolfe in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed.
Complaining that "grifters are spending more than $100,000 to peddle lies about Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe", and criticized the Journal Sentinel and other Milwaukee media outlets for running the falsehood-laden advertisements.
Similarly, it was the commission members, not Wolfe, who authorized the return of multiple ballots, sometimes described as ballot harvesting.The ads continue, accusing Wolfe of permitting local governments to accept private funds to run elections, described as “Zuckerbucks,” from an organization affiliated with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.