The Continuing Deterioration of Wisconsin’s Judicial System - Part Four
Circuit Court Judge Gregory Gill, Jr.’s recent electoral victory for a seat on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals demonstrates why enacting basic court reforms in the state remains an elusive task.
Approximately one month after Outagamie County Circuit Court Judge Gregory Gill, Jr., informally announced that he had received the endorsements of all three current judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals—District Three, he officially announced that he had now received a significant number of endorsements from other current Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges, who identified with a broad range of jurisprudential views.
With these endorsements now behind him, he publicly branded himself as a “pragmatic and honest” Wisconsin circuit court judge. And it appears that other public officials in Wisconsin believed the charade—such as Outagamie County Executive Thomas Nelson (who identifies as a Democrat). As recently as December 16, 2020, Nelson had apparently endorsed Judge Gill, Jr.’s candidacy for the state court of appeals.
However, when officially announcing his candidacy for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals just a few days later, Judge Gill, Jr., was ready to pivot his campaign strategy to making overtures to politically conservative voters. For instance, on December 4, 2020, Judge Gill, Jr., wrote on his Facebook’s campaign page that he was “honored” to receive the endorsement of his “friend,” David Prosser, Jr., a former justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who characterized Judge Gill, Jr., as a “judicial conservative.”
But given Prosser, Jr.’s demonstrated inability in the past to follow basic rules governing the conduct of Wisconsin judges and his history of misogynistic behavior, I certainly wouldn’t be “honored” to receive his endorsement. And similar to United States Senator Bernie Sanders’s personal views about former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, I can proudly say that I do not consider Prosser, Jr., to be my “friend.”
If it wasn’t clear that Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign was switching gears to solidify the support of political conservatives, a number of developments would soon bring clarity. For example, just days before officially announcing his candidacy for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in early December 2020, Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign hired a campaign manager, Landis Holdorf.
According to Holdorf’s various social media pages, not only did he serve as Judge Gill, Jr.’s manager during the campaign, he also moonlighted as chairman of the Lincoln County Republican Party during that time. And prior to working on the Judge Gill, Jr., campaign, Holdorf was a field organizer and senior data analyst with the Wisconsin Republican Party. Furthermore, according to Holdorf’s Twitter page shortly after being hired by Judge Gill, Jr., Holdorf publicly identified as a “paleocon”—short for “paleoconservative”—which is a particular brand of political conservatism associated with toxic nationalism.
While Judge Gill, Jr., loudly and repeatedly touted his commitment to defend the “rule of law” in Wisconsin’s court system during the campaign, his rhetoric stood in stark juxtaposition to his campaign manager’s conduct—as more than one post on Holdorf’s Twitter page conveyed public support of the fringe (and discredited) “stop the steal” conspiracy theory that former President Trump repeatedly embraced over the past year. The baseless “stop the steal” conspiracy theory instigated the unprecedented insurrection in January by Trump supporters at the United States Capitol.
None of Holdorf’s self-professed political beliefs concerned Judge Gill, Jr., enough to terminate his professional relationship with him. Indeed, over the course of the campaign, Judge Gill, Jr. paid $10,500 to Holdorf in “consulting fees.” Evidentially, Judge Gill, Jr.’s commitment to the “rule of law” is superficial and perfunctory, rather than authentic and profound. As United State Supreme Court Justice Breyer argues in his forthcoming book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics, “The rule of law is not a meal that can be ordered à la carte.”
Another example of Judge Gill, Jr., attempting to ensure support from politically conservative voters occurred back in January. Near the end of the month, Judge Gill, Jr., attended Kyle Woodman’s campaign “kick-off” event for the Eau Claire City Council. Although city council positions in Eau Claire are nominally nonpartisan, Woodman had been clearly communicating to voters that he considered himself a politically conservative candidate in his bid for a city council seat.
At the Woodman campaign “kick-off” event, other conservative candidates (or former candidates, such as Derrick Van Orden—a former Republican congressional candidate who attended the rally in Washington D.C. preceding the violent insurrection at the United States Capitol) appeared to give speeches in support of Woodman. Judge Gill, Jr., was among those who appeared to speak at the campaign event—in front of a huge banner that referenced “individual freedoms,” an “open economy,” “fiscal responsibility,” and “law and order.”
Less than two weeks later, Judge Gill, Jr., publicly announced that he had tested positive for having contracted COVID-19. While unfortunate, Judge Gill, Jr.’s diagnosis did not really come as a surprise to those who were closely following his campaign. Up until his diagnosis, Judge Gill, Jr., had been openly campaigning in person, and apparently without following the social distancing guidelines set forth by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And even after he finished his 10-day isolation due to contracting COVID-19, Judge Gill, Jr., openly campaigned in person again—and without following the CDC’s social distancing guidelines.
Approximately one week after publicly announcing his COVID-19 diagnosis, Judge Gill, Jr., attended a virtual candidate forum hosted by the Wisconsin Association for Justice. At the remotely held February event, Judge Gill, Jr., characterized himself as a “textualist.” He also specifically told eligible voters that he believed “the role of the judge is to read the law as it is written” and “to simply follow the directions given to [the judge] by the Constitution and the Legislature.”
However, neither the other candidate nor the moderators at the virtual candidate forum pressed Judge Gill, Jr., on whether his endorsement of fetal personhood comported with his campaign’s “rule of law” rhetoric—as the concept of fetal personhood directly conflicts with prevailing United States Supreme Court precedent establishing that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before viability of the fetus. Notwithstanding Judge Gill, Jr.’s public commitment to fetal personhood, as a Wisconsin state court judge he is still required to apply binding Supreme Court precedent under the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign conduct was intentional—and it communicated a clear message to political conservatives in Wisconsin: he was the judicial candidate in the race who shared their same set of core values. That’s why he received endorsements from many politically conservative-affiliated groups and individuals, including the following: former Wisconsin lieutenant governor Rebecca Kleefisch; the Wisconsin Realtors Association; Wisconsin Right to Life; Pro-Life Wisconsin; and more than 20 local Republican Party chapters in Wisconsin.
Significantly, though, Judge Gill, Jr., was able to successfully reach out to political conservatives, and gain their trust, without alienating his broad support among members of the Wisconsin judiciary. For example, none of the judges who endorsed Judge Gill, Jr.’s candidacy withdrew their support during the campaign. Only Nelson—who currently serves as executive of Outagamie County, but is also a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin for the United States Senate 2022 race—appears to have withdrawn his support sometime before Judge Gill, Jr.’s eventual electoral victory.
In addition to receiving broad public support from political conservatives and members of the Wisconsin judiciary, Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign also received a tremendous amount of money from others. A review of his campaign committee’s finance reports shows that Judge Gill, Jr., received more than $180,000 in contributions over the course of the campaign. According to Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, Judge Gill, Jr.’s fundraising haul was unprecedented for a Wisconsin Court of Appeals race, telling Wisconsin Public Radio that he had “not seen [this] before, where you have real ideological, partisan money going into a state court of appeals race.”
Well, to start off, Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign received a significant number of contributions just from himself and his close family. According to his campaign committee’s 2021 January continuing campaign finance report, Judge Gill, Jr., received $25,000 in campaign contributions solely from himself and other close family members. For some perspective, that’s more than what both judicial candidates—Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Mark Seidl and Kristina Bourget, a former circuit court judge in Eau Claire County—raised during the 2015 spring election for the same exact seat combined.
But this figure pales in comparison to the amount of contributions Judge Gill, Jr.’s campaign received from wealthy individuals who are not a part of Judge Gill, Jr.’s close family, and who had connections to corporate interests. A full review of his campaign committee’s finance reports shows that over the course of the campaign, he received more than $82,000 in campaign contributions from such individuals. For example, Judge Gill, Jr., received large campaign contributions from corporate executives such as John Menard, chief executive officer of Menard, Inc.; Wilson Jones, president of Oshkosh Corporation; and Richard Uihlein, chief executive of Uline Inc., who has been described as “one of the most powerful—and disruptive—GOP donors in the country.”
Apparently, Judge Gill, Jr.’s past advocacy on behalf of corporate interests had not gone unnoticed—or unrewarded. Coupled with the backing of political conservatives and public support from most of the judges on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Judge Gill, Jr., easily defeated his opponent in the 2021 spring general election. By a whopping 10 percent margin.