'Extreme partisan' Wisconsin judge slammed in debate for ties to fake elector plot
Wisconsin judicial candidate Daniel Kelly (campaign photo).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, conservative Judge Daniel Kelly and liberal Judge Janet Protasiewicz, met for a debate on Tuesday — and Protasiewicz pounced on his ties to the plot to declare fake Trump electors in the state, NBC News reported.

"Protasiewicz hammered her conservative opponent, Daniel Kelly, as a 'true threat to democracy' over his ties to a scheme to overturn the 2020 election," reported Adam Edelman and Alexandra Marquez. "'I am running against probably one of the most extreme partisan characters in the history of the state,' Protasiewicz said of Kelly during their debate Tuesday."

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is of deep importance to both liberals and conservatives. A win by Kelly would retain conservative control of the court, while a win by Protasiewicz would result in a liberal majority — something that has not been in place for 15 years — and could determine the fate of issues like abortion rights in the state," said the report. "In one of several attacks the two candidates lobbed at each other over the course of the one-hour debate, Protasiewicz criticized Kelly for having advised Republicans on legal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential race through the use of 'fake electors.'"

Kelly, who previously did consulting work for the Republican Party, was involved in "extensive conversations" with GOP officials on the electors scheme, according to former party chairman Andrew Hitt. Kelly's campaign disputes this characerization, with a spokesperson saying he “took a call from RPW Chairman Hitt on the subject of Republican electors and was asked if he was in the loop about this issue and Justice Kelly stated he was not.”

Kelly has already served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, having been appointed to that role by former Gov. Scott Walker, and was defeated for a full term in 2020.

This comes after Kelly generated controversy for refusing to answer a survey from a local business group on his support for democracy. He has claimed that the survey is inappropriate for a judge to answer.