MADISON, Wis. — Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly said he is “cautiously optimistic” about the race for the state’s highest court as voters get ready to head to the polls on Tuesday.
Kelly, who has been outraised by his opponent 5-to-1 according to the latest financial reports, told Spectrum News 1, after a Rotary Club of Madison event Wednesday, he expects the spending gap to narrow by the end of the race next week.
“I think that aspect of it impacts the campaign and the potential work of the court in a very negative way,” Kelly said of the amount of money his opponent has received from the state Democratic Party.
Kelly explained why he believes the newest member of the state’s high court shouldn’t owe their success to a political party.
“We’re not taking large contributions from the state party because one: I intend to win,” said Kelly. “And so, serving on the court, you need to have not only personal integrity, as a matter of fact, but people need to see that personal integrity.”
Despite that decision, Kelly said he still has the resources to get his message to voters.
“Knock yourself out. Spend whatever you want,” Kelly replied. “I don’t think our fellow Wisconsinites are going to be buying the bill of goods she’s trying to sell.”
Though it is technically a nonpartisan race, Kelly uses the word “deplorable” to describe the direction it has gone.
“Maybe I should have thicker skin about this, and sometimes I pretend that I do, but I really don’t,” said Kelly. “Any ad that we put out that relates to [Protasiewicz] is factual. We look at what she has actually done as a jurist, and we bring that information to light. Now, it may reflect badly on her, and I think it does.”
However, Kelly doesn’t consider that to be so-called ‘mudslinging’ on his part.
“[My father] left me a good name, and I’ve treasured that my whole life, and it’s my ambition to hand that good name down to my children when I’m done with this life,” said Kelly. “Now, I’ve got my opponent out there telling serial lies about me, trying to trash my father’s legacy. That’s the only thing I have left of him, and that makes me angry. I think it’s wildly inappropriate, especially coming from a member of the judiciary.”