For my money, Bill Lueders and John Nichols are the two best political writers living in Wisconsin.

But I was stunned to read Lueders’ piece, “In Defense of Annette Ziegler,” in which Lueders calls Nichols’ criticism of Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler’s admitted conflicts of interests “way overblown,” “unfair,” and motivated by hostility toward Ziegler’s “ideology.”

Lueders’ acknowledges “… Ziegler was wrong to preside over cases in which she had an undisclosed personal connection to one of the parties. Her poor judgment was exacerbated by her initial refusal to admit she'd done anything wrong. …”

Wrong? A more apt description of Ziegler’s judicial misconduct is appalling, and contrary to settled law and ethical rules that specifically call for judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Lueders knows better than most the violence that can be inflicted upon citizens by officials at all levels of law enforcement and the judiciary in civil and criminal litigation.

The Capital Times became the first daily newspaper to call for the resignation of Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Annette Ziegler.

We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.

Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.

Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.

Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.

Update: Kos reader says 540,425 signatures for recall during a given 60-day period.

 If ever there were a clear case for a citizen recall of a state-wide public official, Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler is she.

Today's Capital Times raises the possibility of a citizen recall should, as expected, the Wisconsin Supreme Court neither suspends nor expels the corrupt Ziegler.

Writes the Cap Times editorial:

The legal quagmire that is created by Ziegler's presence on the court is shameful. But Ziegler has no shame. Even as she admits to past wrongdoing, for which she faces an as-yet-undetermined punishment, the justice holds a seat she secured by deliberately deceiving the voters of Wisconsin.

Experience suggests that officials such as Ziegler are eventually tripped up by their own ethical missteps. If that does not happen, then a case can certainly be made for a citizen-initiated recall that would force Ziegler to face the voters in an election where her admissions of judicial wrongdoing would be known to the electorate.

Sounds good.

###

Update III:  SCR 60.03  A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
A.  SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."

Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Update II: Hearing ended.