Milwaukee County judicial candidates Shelton and Jones ID bad U.S. Supreme Court decisions

By Gretchen Schuldt

Andrew Jones and Danielle Shelton are competing for the Branch 40 judicial seat vacated by Rebecca Dallet when she was elected to the State Supreme Court in April 2018. Jones has held the seat since August, when he was appointed by former Gov. Scott Walker.

This is the only contested Milwaukee County judicial race this spring. Shelton and Jones agreed to answer a series of questions from WJI to better inform voters about the race.

Question 3: Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way. 

Shelton

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), held that limits on corporate and union political expenditures during election cycles violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Corporations and labor unions can spend unlimited sums in support of or in opposition to candidates as long as the spending is independent of the candidates.
​
The contradiction is that the Supreme Court required electoral districts to be drawn with roughly equal populations because the Constitution “demands” that each citizen have “an equally effective voice.” Hence, “one person, one vote.” Yet, when corporations, or other big money spenders, are able to flood the airwaves with their messages, they can effectively drown out the voices of other citizens, whose democratic right to political speech deserves no less protection than those with financial resources. This undermines the political equality that gives our government legitimacy. 

​Shelton's resume is here. Personal information, such as telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and the names of people not directly involved in the campaign have been redacted.​

https://www.sheltonforjudge.com/

​We asked State Supreme Court candidates Brian Hagedorn and Lisa Neubauer to respond to our questionnaire, but neither obliged.

Hagedorn was profiled as part of our "Walker's Judges" series – you can read that here. 

Jones

In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the City of New London, Connecticut’s use of the power of eminent domain to acquire private property to be used for development by other private parties as part of a large-scale redevelopment plan approved by the City violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Specifically, the Court addressed the question of whether the use of eminent domain for such a purpose qualified as a “public use,” as would be necessary for it to satisfy the Takings Clause.

 Acknowledging that the City’s use of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party would not constitute such a “public use” and would be an unconstitutional taking, the Court nonetheless ruled in Kelo that the use of eminent domain to take the property in question was constitutional because the underlying redevelopment plan of the City served a “public interest.”  In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that prior precedent defines what serves the “public interest” broadly and requires significant deference by the courts to legislative decisions about what does and does not serve the public interest.
​    
I believe the majority’s holding in Kelo is flawed in that it too broadly defines what may constitute a “public use” for purposes of the Takings Clause and is too deferential to legislative determinations about whether or not a particular taking of private property serves the public interest.  As Justice O’Connor reasoned in her dissenting opinion, the majority’s holding opens the door to all private property being taken by a local government and transferred to another private property owner as long as the local legislative body deems the use proposed by the new owner to be more advantageous to the public.  Further, as Justice O’Connor’s dissent further reasoned, “an external, judicial check” on the use of eminent domain under such circumstances is necessary if the Takings Clause is to have any meaning.  Otherwise, as the dissent pointedly noted, “[n]othing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

​Jones' resume is here. Personal information, such as telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and the names of people not directly involved in the campaign have been redacted.

https://www.judgeandrewjones.com/