INTEREST MONEY.

>> Frederica: ZAC SCHULTZ THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>> IT'S SAID WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ELECTION NON PARTISAN IN NAME ONLY AND SEEMS MORE TRUE NOW THAN EVER.

WHAT DOES A FORMER JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT THINK OF THIS TREND?

WE TURN TO JANNINE GESKE.

>> IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

WHAT DO I THINK?

>> Frederica: DO YOU THINK WE'VE COME OUT OF THE GATES OF PARTISAN POLITICS?

>> IT APPEARS THAT WAY FROM ENDORSEMENTS TO THE MONEY BEING PUT IN TO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEIR VALUES AND THEIR BELIEFS ARE.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE AND TO THE LEFT THAT PEOPLE ARE RUNNING ON ISSUES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE.

TO ME THAT'S MORE A LEGISLATIVE PARTISAN RACE THAN A SUPREME COURT RACE.

I FIND IT VERY DISTRESSING.

>> Frederica: I WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT AND REMIND THE VIEWER THERE'S A SUPPORTER OF ABORTION RIGHTS AND SAID THE LEGISLATIVE MAPS ARE RIGGED AND MAINTAINS VOTERS WANT TO KNOW WHERE PEOPLE STAND BUT YOU DON'T THINK SO.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT -- AND I UNDERSTAND.

WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN BELIEFS.

THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IT'S A SIGNAL HOW SHE'LL VOTE.

THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S YOUR VALUES BUT IF YOU'RE TAKING AN OATH YOU'LL FOLLOW THE LAW REGARDLESS OF OPINION EVEN IF IT'S INCONSISTENT WHAT YOU MIGHT VOTE FOR THAT'S WHAT A JUDGE SHOULD DO.

I THINK BOTH CANDIDATES ARE DOING THAT IN DIFFERENT WAYS OF ING INDICATING OR HINTING WHERE THEY MIGHT VOTE BUT THE ELECTORATE WILL BELIEVE THE ISSUE IS ON THE BALLOT VERSUS CANDIDATE AND WE WANT JUDGE TO LOOK AT EACH CASE INDEPENDENTLY AND WHETHER THEIR SUPPORTERS LIKE IT OR NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY BELIEVE IS RIGHT.

>> Frederica: FORMER JUSTICE KELLY ISN'T EXACTLY NON PARTISAN.

HE'S WORKED FOR BOTH STATE AND NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTIES INCLUDING ADVISING ON THE FAKE ELECTOR SCHEME HERE IN WISCONSIN AND YET HE SAYS THIS VIRTUE SIGNALLING, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, MAKES THE JUDGE NOT COMMITTED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

IS THAT -- DO YOU THINK THAT'S FAIR.

>> NO, I THINK BOTH CANDIDATES ARE DOING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND I THINK THERE ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE DOUBTING WHERE JUSTICE KELLY INDICATES HE MIGHT BE ON ISSUES.

HE'S DOING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND SHOWED IN DIFFERENT WAYS HOW HE'S WORKED AND WHO HE'S REPRESENTED AND WHAT ISSUES HE'S TAKEN ON.

I THINK THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ASK IS IF YOUR LEGAL CONCLUSION COMES TO A DIFFERENT RESULT THAN WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING NOW, ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?

IF YOU CAN'T YOU SHOULDN'T SIT THE CASES.

I THINK THEY'RE BOTH GIVING THE FEELING ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE ON ISSUES.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AS LONG AS VOTERS UNDERSTAND THEIR OATH IS TO DECIDE SOMETIMES INCONSISTENTLY WITH WHAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE.

>> Frederica: DOES IT SEEM LIKE A CHARADE THEN TO SUGGEST NEITHER SIDE WOULD QUOTE, LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH?

>> I'M NOT DOUBTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CANDIDATES.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW THE CAMPAIGNS GET SHAPED SO PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ELECTED.

AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WE CAN POINT TO JUSTICE KELLY'S VIEW TO JUSTICE HAGEDORN AND WHEN HE REFERS TO HIM HE TALKS ABOUT HIM NOT BEING TRUSTWORTHY OR RELIABLE BECAUSE HE WASN'T RELIABLY CONSERVATIVE MEANING JUSTICE HAGEDORN CAME TO A DIFFERENT DECISION.

SOME PEOPLE CALL THEM TRAITORS AND PROFOUNDLY DISAPPOINTED ON JUSTICE HAGEDORN ON THE RESULTS OF HIS CASES AND PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO DO THAT WHEN YOU'RE A JUDGE AND PEOPLE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE HAPPY WITH THE RESULT.

>> Frederica: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DAYS OF CANDIDATES FOR THE SUPREME COURT SAYING THEY COULDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT ISSUE MAY COME BEFORE THEM?

IT SOUNDS ALMOST QUAINT TODAY.

>> IT WASN'T QUAINT IT WAS TRUE.

THERE ARE TIMES I PUBLICLY TALKED ABOUT CASES THAT MY VOTE WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE IF I WERE VOTING AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THERE ARE TIMES SOMETIMES I WOULD WRITE A CONCURRENCE OR ANOTHER OPINION SAYING I WISH THE LEGISLATURE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND CHANGE THINGS BUT THIS IS HOW I INTERPRETED IT AS A JUDGE.

THE RISK IS PEOPLE WILL THINK YOU'RE ELECTING PEOPLE ON A DELIVERABLE IS UNFORTUNATE.

I'M ACTUALLY BECOMING AN ADVOCATE FOR APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES.

I THINK WE'VE GONE WAY OVER THE LINE OF TRYING TO ELECT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGES THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE IN.

>> Frederica: WHAT'S THIS MEAN INCLUDING THE HIGH STAKES, HIGH-SPENDING NATURE OF THIS RACE REPORTEDLY PROJECTED TO BE THE MOST EXPENSIVE JUDICIAL ELECTION IN THE UNITED STATES?

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR THE INTEGRITY IN YOUR MIND OF THE COURT?

>> I THINK IT IMPACTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT AND FAITH PEOPLE HAVE IN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

IT RIPPLES DOWN TO THE TRIAL COURTS.

IT'S NOT JUST THE SUPREME COURT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK JUDGE RESPOND TO THEIR SUPPORTERS AND THAT CERTAIN PARTIES WILL WIN BECAUSE OF WHO IS SITTING ON THE BENCH.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED.

I THINK THEY WANTED JUDGE INVOLVED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND PEOPLE RESPECTED KNEW AND COMMITTED THEIR LIVES TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND NOW WE HAVE ADS AND THINGS GIVING US THE SENSE WE'RE ELECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO REPRESENT CERTAIN INTERESTS.