I would vote for Janet Protasiewicz. I'd like to see her and Everett Mitchell advance past the February 21, 2023 primary into the April 4, 2023 general election.
In 2021 and 2022 school board elections, I found that the phrase "keeping politics out of classrooms" often meant "keeping accurate history out of classrooms."
However, when Judge Protasiewicz's website says "It's time for our state Supreme Court to stop acting like a political body and uphold the constitution and the law," she gives concrete examples showing that she truly does want the Wisconsin judiciary to behave the way all of our high school civics classes told us judiciaries are supposed to behave.
And I like this bit:
"I've got simple Wisconsin values. If you break the law, you should be held accountable. If you work hard and play by the rules, the government should leave you alone. And if your rights are violated, you should get a fair shot to demand justice."
I would vote for Everett Mitchell. I'd like to see him and Janet Protasiewicz advance past the February 21, 2023 primary into the April 4, 2023 general election.
I like his simple but humane and forward-thinking practices such as, "During his tenure on the bench, Judge Mitchell has worked with colleagues to change courtroom policies to reflect trauma-informed practices, such as removing restraints and handcuffs on youth during hearings."
I would not vote for Dan Kelly. His website is literally headlined, "Judicial Conservative Daniel Kelly for Wisconsin Supreme Court."
That seems highly inappropriate for someone who's supposed to be running for Wisconsin's highest nonpartisan office.
In one breath, his website says "Judicial activism occurs when a jurist allows his or her personal politics to influence the resolution of a case. This is the antithesis of the rule of law.," and then in another breath, it says "Wisconsin needs Dan's Judicial Conservatism." It's hypocritical and inappropriate.
He claims his experience "representing religious organizations' rights to free speech" is part of why he should be on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, but if you're looking for someone who will actually protect the first amendment and its protections for religion, yet perhaps helps infuse U.S. courtrooms with good and moral practices inspired by a religion you perhaps also share, Judge Everett Mitchell is a much better choice for you: he has a Master of Divinity and a Master of Theology from Princeton in addition to his law J.D. and has been a preacher for 11 years.
Rather than threatening to ignore the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and establish a theocracy, Judge Everett Mitchell's faith-inspired contributions to secular courtroom practices include activities like feeding the hungry ("Give gift cards to young people who are achieving and staying out of trouble. This gives some food to eat who may not have it otherwise"), walking amongst those who are suffering ("Spend Thanksgiving and Christmas Day with Juveniles in Detention"), and supporting family values ("Providing support to young people who are parenting themselves and their siblings").
I would be extremely disappointed if he made it past the primary and into the general election. Wisconsin's voters threw him off the Supreme Court 55%-45% in 2020 for Jill Karofsky; I hope they send a strong message in February of 2023 and advance actual U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin Constitution defenders Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell to the primary instead.
(Although when I called the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the person who answered the phone said the February 21st primary only lets you fill in 1 bubble, so I suppose it's possible that if a mere 34% of Wisconsin supports this anti-constitutional-law candidate, he could, sadly, advance to the general election. It's a shame there isn't already some sort of ranked-choice mechanism in place to better help surface candidates representing the actual values-based intent of voters when multiple candidates espouse similar values, as Protasiewicz and Mitchell do).
I would not vote for Jennifer Dorow.
After reading the guides.vote nonpartisan guide, I feel that she, too, would pretend that her personal disgust for things humans do (e.g. be attracted to people in a way that she finds gross) makes them outside of the scope of the U.S. constitution's privacy protections, even though I think it seems pretty cut-and-dry that protecting such activities very much falls within our consitutional privacy rights if you set aside your own personal filter and look at the law neutrally.
Similarly, she also advertises her social "conservatism" as a reason to elect her to a neutral law-interpreting body all while calling former decisions that are actually neutral interpretations of the law "dangerous."
I think that she would be just as dangerous to the rule of law in Wisconsin as Dan Kelly.
TL;DR: if the last name is less than 6 letters long, don't vote for them in the Feb. 21st primary.