There’s nothing like election time on a college campus, and although the final ballots aren’t cast until April, you can already feel the electricity. The only things that compare to watching students take to Library Mall and throw terms like “judicial restraint” and “election reform” at each other are griffins and snow days, because all three are non-existent. Despite the role judges play in our lives, whether it be watching Judge Judy, hanging posters of Judge Reinhold or just praying the guy in the black, flowing robes drops your drinking ticket, judges have a necessary and important function in our society. So with the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court set to take on a challenger, it’s a good time to reacquaint ourselves with the judicial process, both as a fundamental pillar of government and good old fashioned, American soap opera.
In the red corner sits Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. A Supreme Court veteran, Abrahamson began serving in 1976, with three successful re-elections to her name. Simply put, she’s undefeated in the ring, and with her fundraising efforts already netting her over $1 million, she doesn’t look to be leaving anytime soon. Of course, her opponent thinks otherwise.
That brave soul would be Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick, in the blue corner with the patterned trunks. Although he’s only served on the bench since ‘99, he did spend 14 years as a public defender, so even if he doesn’t win, it’s not like he’s unaccustomed to losing. And, unfortunately, with only $14,000 in funds as of his most recent reporting, a loss looks more inevitable every day. But as any prizefighter knows, all it takes is a few extra hours on the heavy bag, a few more jump rope reps, and a roll of quarters in the glove to change the momentum of a fight.
For Koschnick, that momentum shift may have come last week when he received an unlikely endorsement. Ted Oswald, a cop killer and former Koschnick client, weighed in on the upcoming election in a prison letter by saying electing his former public defender would make the court a “fairer, more effective and trustworthy” place. Typically, one wouldn’t take a murderer’s words too seriously, especially when his last name is Oswald, but this is one of the few endorsements in election history that should actually hold value.
Endorsements in politics — and politics is a terrible word to use here, because judicial elections should never be about politics, but that’s the way it works in our hyper-political world these days — usually work a certain way. If you want to be endorsed by the police, you promise things that would make the police happy. This formula works with all kinds of voter groups, which is something Koschnick already knows. As an evangelical church elder opposed to gay marriage and abortion and skeptical of this evolution thing, he’s likely to attract a good number of religious voters. In other words, it’s a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” way of getting elected.
Not surprisingly though, as an inmate, the only people who’ve been scratching Ted Oswald’s back are those two members of the Aryan Brotherhood who share hygiene time with him in the morning. In fact, as the attorney who unsuccessfully defended the killer, it seems incredibly unlikely that Koschnick would receive any positive words from Oswald. Sure, maybe Oswald’s just a forgiving guy, and maybe he knew that not even Johnny Cochran could acquit a cop killer, but if the “Shawshank Redemption” taught us anything, it’s that every convict in prison got screwed over by their lawyer.
I imagine this won’t be seen by many as a strong endorsement, and that’s a shame. If we can listen to drunk drivers lecture people on the dangers of alcohol, and we’re fine with Ray Lewis threatening us unless we wear Under Armour, it only seems right we trust a former client on the legal abilities of Judge Koschnick. It’s too bad Ted Oswald is locked in prison and can’t more actively participate in Koschnick’s election. If you let him door knock, I bet people would take him a little more seriously.
Sean Kittridge ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.






IP hash: e3d15476
You should also mention the rather distinguished former Supreme Court justices who have endorsed Koschnick. Their opinion means more than some nutjob.
Do your research and inform students on a topic like this instead of spewing out more sophomoric drivel.
IP hash: a5a0cfb7
The article was hardly “sophmoric drivel”, but rather an insightful view from someone able to turn a jewel to see all the facets. Since most convicted felons insist that their defense attorney did NOT do a good job, for a convict to make positive comments regarding his defense reflects clearly that Koschnick’s representation was all it could have been. Koschnick will be a fine Supreme Court judge.
IP hash: c313499f
This article is extremely biased. Koschnick has plenty of valid endorsements, including the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, 10 police chiefs, even more sheriffs and 2 former Supreme Court Justices. Furthermore, considering the immense rate at which trial lawyers are donating to Abrahamson’s clean campaign fund, it’s no wonder she won’t sign the clean campaign fund and ironic that she can call Koschnick partial and biased. If you truly want to write a fair article at least include the campaign website so people can find out themselves: koscnickforjustice.com. I thought the Badger Herald had more decency than to publish something like this.
IP hash: d95789b6
http://desmoines.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/is-wisconsins-system-of-electing-judges-and-justices-being-corrupted-by-campaign-contributions.aspx?googleid=257258
Here is a good article showing a glimpse of the other side.
IP hash: 653d039a
This is poorly written - the real gist of the article comes several paragraphs deep into it. You get about a paragraph’s worth of article for roughly 5 of build up. Lead with the endorsement, and then say something about it. I still have no idea what I just read.
IP hash: 86eb6c2b
People, it’s satire. Calm down.