Wisconsin’s Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson
An icon of justice
An icon of justice
for them and for them only. And the courts do not work for special interests, entities, associations or political parties. The courts work for the 5.8 million people
who call this great state home. That’s the way it should be.”
The American system of government rests upon the separation of power between the legislative, executive and judicial with the legislative deciding policy,
the executive enforcing it and the judicial applying it to individual cases that come before it. Yet there are times when the boundaries between the branches are
fuzzy. “They raise constitutional questions because no branch should step on the toes of the other branch,” Abrahamson said. “And when these constitutional
questions arise under our system of law, the courts decide these issues.”
While deciding cases that are before the court dictate some level of isolation, Abrahamson emphasized that she is far from being a prisoner of the walls of
the Supreme Court chambers. “Over the 30 plus years that I have been a judge, I have traveled this entire state,” Abrahamson said. “I have been to every single
one of the 72 counties, not once, not twice, but several times. In the last two plus years, I have held sessions in the courthouses and elsewhere in the counties to
listen to the people’s concerns, to hear what is happening and then to try and resolve issues that are raised.”
As chief justice, Abrahamson is responsible for the smooth functioning of Wisconsin’s court system. And while the Supreme Court must be impartial and fair,
the courts can also institute programs and policies that reduce the need for people to be repeatedly involved in the court system. “The courts of this state are
innovative and creative in ensuring public safety, reducing recidivism and reducing costs,” Abrahamson emphasized. “So we have drug courts, mental health
courts, domestic violence courts and alcohol abuse courts. They are designed to reach the underlying issues in these cases and see that these people don’t
come back as they do now. We want them to become citizens who adhere to the law. I have tried to work hard for making the courts accessible to all of the
people, rich and poor, making the courts accessible for Wisconsin families. For example, we’ve begun a pilot program in Iowa County so that lenders and
homeowners can be offered alternative dispute resolution and mediation in foreclosure actions. We detected an issue of veterans coming back from Iraq and
Afghanistan who were appearing in court and had mental health problems and drug and alcohol abuse issues. So we have a program alerting the judges and
others to identify the veterans and see if we can’t get veteran benefits for them to assist them. They have, of course, violated the law and they have to face that.
But it is a matter of how they are handled within the court.”
During the past two judicial election campaigns, large amounts of money have been pumped into the races. Much of that money has come from out-of-
state. Some have called for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Abrahamson favors the elective process. “It’s been our tradition,” Abrahamson
emphasized. “It was adopted in the 1848 constitution. We’ve had it since. There are some problems with it. But no selection system is perfect. Many of the states
are looking at their system, whether it’s elective and want an appointive, if it’s appointive, they want elective. They are all looking for change because none of
them work perfectly. There are two issues, at least in our system, of electing judges. One is that fewer than 20 percent generally vote in the April election. And
that means a small minority of people select very important positions. The second one is financing. It’s expensive to run campaigns. The public perceives that
contributions might affect the judge. It doesn’t matter whether the public is right or wrong. It’s the perception. And it undermines trust and confidence. And that is
bad. I have always favored and been a strong proponent of public financing of Supreme Court justice campaigns.”
For Abrahamson, it always goes back to the integrity of the judicial system — both perceived and real — and the rule of law. Abrahamson represents the
very best of the notion of justice in Wisconsin law.
who call this great state home. That’s the way it should be.”
The American system of government rests upon the separation of power between the legislative, executive and judicial with the legislative deciding policy,
the executive enforcing it and the judicial applying it to individual cases that come before it. Yet there are times when the boundaries between the branches are
fuzzy. “They raise constitutional questions because no branch should step on the toes of the other branch,” Abrahamson said. “And when these constitutional
questions arise under our system of law, the courts decide these issues.”
While deciding cases that are before the court dictate some level of isolation, Abrahamson emphasized that she is far from being a prisoner of the walls of
the Supreme Court chambers. “Over the 30 plus years that I have been a judge, I have traveled this entire state,” Abrahamson said. “I have been to every single
one of the 72 counties, not once, not twice, but several times. In the last two plus years, I have held sessions in the courthouses and elsewhere in the counties to
listen to the people’s concerns, to hear what is happening and then to try and resolve issues that are raised.”
As chief justice, Abrahamson is responsible for the smooth functioning of Wisconsin’s court system. And while the Supreme Court must be impartial and fair,
the courts can also institute programs and policies that reduce the need for people to be repeatedly involved in the court system. “The courts of this state are
innovative and creative in ensuring public safety, reducing recidivism and reducing costs,” Abrahamson emphasized. “So we have drug courts, mental health
courts, domestic violence courts and alcohol abuse courts. They are designed to reach the underlying issues in these cases and see that these people don’t
come back as they do now. We want them to become citizens who adhere to the law. I have tried to work hard for making the courts accessible to all of the
people, rich and poor, making the courts accessible for Wisconsin families. For example, we’ve begun a pilot program in Iowa County so that lenders and
homeowners can be offered alternative dispute resolution and mediation in foreclosure actions. We detected an issue of veterans coming back from Iraq and
Afghanistan who were appearing in court and had mental health problems and drug and alcohol abuse issues. So we have a program alerting the judges and
others to identify the veterans and see if we can’t get veteran benefits for them to assist them. They have, of course, violated the law and they have to face that.
But it is a matter of how they are handled within the court.”
During the past two judicial election campaigns, large amounts of money have been pumped into the races. Much of that money has come from out-of-
state. Some have called for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Abrahamson favors the elective process. “It’s been our tradition,” Abrahamson
emphasized. “It was adopted in the 1848 constitution. We’ve had it since. There are some problems with it. But no selection system is perfect. Many of the states
are looking at their system, whether it’s elective and want an appointive, if it’s appointive, they want elective. They are all looking for change because none of
them work perfectly. There are two issues, at least in our system, of electing judges. One is that fewer than 20 percent generally vote in the April election. And
that means a small minority of people select very important positions. The second one is financing. It’s expensive to run campaigns. The public perceives that
contributions might affect the judge. It doesn’t matter whether the public is right or wrong. It’s the perception. And it undermines trust and confidence. And that is
bad. I have always favored and been a strong proponent of public financing of Supreme Court justice campaigns.”
For Abrahamson, it always goes back to the integrity of the judicial system — both perceived and real — and the rule of law. Abrahamson represents the
very best of the notion of justice in Wisconsin law.
Part 2 of 2
by Jonathan Gramling
When she was growing up in New York City, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson learned the meaning of hard work.
“My parents owned a small grocery store and worked from 5-6 a.m. until 11 p.m.,” said Abrahamson as we
sat in her comfortable State Capitol office lined with law books. “They said ‘The harder you work, the luckier you
get.’”
Abrahamson has been working hard on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court for the past 33 years, 12 of them as its chief
justice. She has participated in over 3,500 written decisions of the court and has authored more than 450 of them
herself. Yet while she has seen so many cases before the court, she still takes them one at a time.
“There are statutes,” Abrahamson explained about how she approaches each case. “There is the federal
constitution. There is the state constitution. There are rules and regulations. And they govern. And if it isn’t one of
them and there is a deed or a contract or a
lease or a mortgage, those govern the transaction as to the law. And then you have to look at the facts. And when
you put these facts together with the law, a
decision is reached that is fair, that is according to the law and without outside influence and without putting the
judge’s personal views into the mix.”
While it may not seem to be, the way that some people act, Abrahamson emphasized that no one is above the
law. “I see the law as a very important
aspect of American and Wisconsin life,” Abrahamson said. “All of us — judges, lawyers, the President of the United
States, legislators — we are governed by the rule of law. The law applies to all of us. And we are all held
accountable. And I think that is very important. It is very important that the people are assured that the courts work
by Jonathan Gramling
When she was growing up in New York City, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson learned the meaning of hard work.
“My parents owned a small grocery store and worked from 5-6 a.m. until 11 p.m.,” said Abrahamson as we
sat in her comfortable State Capitol office lined with law books. “They said ‘The harder you work, the luckier you
get.’”
Abrahamson has been working hard on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court for the past 33 years, 12 of them as its chief
justice. She has participated in over 3,500 written decisions of the court and has authored more than 450 of them
herself. Yet while she has seen so many cases before the court, she still takes them one at a time.
“There are statutes,” Abrahamson explained about how she approaches each case. “There is the federal
constitution. There is the state constitution. There are rules and regulations. And they govern. And if it isn’t one of
them and there is a deed or a contract or a
lease or a mortgage, those govern the transaction as to the law. And then you have to look at the facts. And when
you put these facts together with the law, a
decision is reached that is fair, that is according to the law and without outside influence and without putting the
judge’s personal views into the mix.”
While it may not seem to be, the way that some people act, Abrahamson emphasized that no one is above the
law. “I see the law as a very important
aspect of American and Wisconsin life,” Abrahamson said. “All of us — judges, lawyers, the President of the United
States, legislators — we are governed by the rule of law. The law applies to all of us. And we are all held
accountable. And I think that is very important. It is very important that the people are assured that the courts work
Shirley Abrahamson has been the chief
justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
since 1996.
justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
since 1996.