5 takeaways from the only Supreme Court election debate. Daniel Kelly and Janet Protasiewicz take the gloves off.

MADISON - Former Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly and Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz met Tuesday for the pair's only debate in a race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — a contest that puts the future of abortion policy, union rights and the state's legislative maps on the ballot.

Conservatives are defending a 4-3 majority on the state's highest court, with candidates and aligned interest groups spending tens of millions to keep liberals from taking control for the first time in 15 years. The fight to flip the court is drawing more firepower from Democratic interests for a total price tag that's already the highest ever spent on a single judicial election.

The stakes of this year's state Supreme Court race range from how routine cases like criminal appeals are decided to watershed rulings, including deciding whether doctors may terminate pregnancies within the state's boundaries and whether Republicans will continue to control the state Legislature by wide margins.

Challenges to the state's election laws leading up to the 2024 presidential election will also end up at the high court as will lawsuits filed after a winner is chosen.

Protasiewicz and Kelly met for just one debate after Protasiewicz declined to appear at other events with Kelly ahead of the April 4 election.

Here are five takeaways from the debate:

It was a bitter feud

For nearly an hour, Kelly and Protasiewicz battled at the State Bar of Wisconsin's headquarters in Madison — accusing each other of running deceitful campaigns and being an unprecedented danger to the state.

Protasiewicz called Kelly one of the most "extremely partisan candidates" in the history of the state. 

"He is a true threat to our democracy," she said, citing legal counsel Kelly provided to state GOP officials while they planned to submit false paperwork claiming to be electors for former President Donald Trump following Trump's defeat in 2020.

Kelly repeatedly called Protasiewicz a liar and said the only way to restore trust in the Supreme Court would be for him to be elected. 

Protasiewicz signals court could make changes to Act 10, voting policies if elected

When asked about her views on the precedent established by cases involving past rulings that have upheld a state law known as Act 10 that limited collective bargaining, and rulings that barred the use of absentee drop boxes and upheld a state law requiring photo identification to vote, Protasiewicz signaled those rules could change in the future.

"Obviously, we all follow precedent all the time. That's what you want to do. You want people to have an ability to understand what the court is likely going to do. You know, that's the rule of law. That's the stare decisis. That's what we all follow. But you know, precedent changes," Protasiewicz said, citing the evolution of precedent on issues involving segregation and race.

Kelly says he won't accept millions from state GOP but has received party support

Kelly said he would not accept millions from the state Republican Party because he does not want to be known as a Supreme Court justice who is "bought and paid for."

"I understand my opponent has been accepting millions of dollars from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and I think that presents a major problem," Kelly said. "If she were to be elected to the Supreme Court, she would forever afterwards be known as being bought and paid for by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin."

Kelly in his unsuccessful 2020 campaign also used the Republican Party of Wisconsin's offices as his campaign headquarters and state GOP staff are providing 2023 campaign help in the form of communications and research. He also has received contributions from the state GOP, including around $4,000 in March.

Protasiewicz said she would recuse herself from hearing lawsuits brought by or against the Democratic Party of Wisconsin because of the millions of dollars the state party has funneled into her campaign.

She accused Kelly of already being "bought and paid for" by the Republicans because he worked for the party and Republican National Committee for two years on election issues and was paid nearly $120,000. Kelly said he is an attorney and is hired by many clients.

Kelly distances himself from anti-abortion group’s endorsement

Protasiewicz accused Kelly of promising anti-abortion lobbying groups to block efforts to repeal the state’s abortion ban, citing an endorsement from Wisconsin Right to Life during the primary race because the group said it “endorses candidates who have pledged to champion pro-life values and stand with Wisconsin Right to Life’s legislative strategy.”

The group updated its website after February to include that in judicial elections, the group “endorses candidates whose judicial philosophies and values fit with those of Wisconsin Right to Life," according to the Internet Archive.

In response to Protasiewicz, Kelly said “that is absolutely not true.”

The candidates agree on one thing

Protasiewicz and Kelly clashed on nearly every issue except one — the constitutional amendment that will appear on the April 4 ballot on cash bail. Both candidates said they would like to see the amendment pass.

The amendment would allow judges to consider the totality of the circumstances of a defendant, including a person's past criminal record and the need to protect the public from "serious harm," when setting the monetary amount of bail.

Currently, judges can only use monetary bail amounts to help ensure a person appears in court.

Corrinne Hess and Molly Beck can be reached at chess@gannett.com and molly.beck@jrn.com.