Further to the observations of JoAnne Kloppenburg, the other two challengers to incumbent Supreme Court Justice David Prosser:
Justice David Prosser had a chance to deal with the ethical failings of one of the court’s own members but refused. Justice Michael Gableman won his last election based on a campaign ad that was condemned by newspaper editorial boards across the state as a misleading attempt at race baiting. They called it "purposeful distortion," and "a lie." This ad was such a distortion that Justice Gableman's lawyer was forced to defend it by saying justices should be able to mislead the public in campaign ads. Justice Prosser bought the argument. He could have held his colleague to a higher standard. He did not. Justice Prosser supported a decision that says campaign season is open season on the truth.
The misconduct of Judge Michael Gableman, which was charged by the Judicial Commission, would have been punished if Justice David Prosser had voted for discipline, along with three other justices who were willing to hold Gableman to account. I would have held him to account. I will not allow lawyers to get away with intellectual dishonesty before the Supreme Court.
It's difficult not to agree with any of 'em.