Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, appointed by Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in 2021 to lead an investigation into the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, is facing professional misconduct charges. Gableman’s investigation was part of a broader effort by Republican lawmakers to challenge the legitimacy of the election results. However, after an extensive and costly inquiry, Gableman’s investigation found no evidence of voter fraud, and his actions during the process have now raised serious legal and ethical concerns.
The charges against Gableman stem from his conduct during the investigation and his subsequent behavior. Wisconsin’s legal regulatory authorities filed a disciplinary complaint accusing him of making multiple false statements. The complaint centers on petitions Gableman filed to compel the mayors of Green Bay and Madison to respond to subpoenas. These petitions, according to the charges, contained false statements and failed to include material facts that would have allowed the tribunal to make an informed decision. Additionally, when the mayors complied with the subpoenas, Gableman allegedly misrepresented their responses, further complicating his position.
Gableman’s actions were not confined to his handling of subpoenas. During a June 2022 court hearing, he was accused of disrupting the proceedings by disparaging the court and making inappropriate comments, including alleged misogynistic remarks about a female attorney. These outbursts and his disregard for court orders to respond to open records requests led to a referral to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation. The charges against him now include at least 10 separate violations, ranging from dishonesty to misconduct in court.
Another significant issue for regulators was Gableman’s approach to his assignment. When Vos hired him, the purpose was clear: Gableman was tasked with gathering facts about the administration of elections in Wisconsin and making recommendations for future election reforms. Vos emphasized that the investigation should be prospective, focusing on how elections could be improved going forward, rather than attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. However, Gableman’s actions diverged from this directive. In his final report, he included an appendix arguing that the legislature could decertify the 2020 election results, a claim that was not only contrary to Vos’s stated goals but also widely debunked as legally untenable. This inclusion of an opinion about decertification was seen as part of Gableman’s broader agenda, which appeared to align with unfounded claims that the election had been “stolen.”
The regulatory authorities also took issue with Gableman’s denial of providing legal advice. Throughout the investigation, he reportedly claimed that his responsibilities did not include offering legal counsel, yet his actions suggested otherwise. In fact, Gableman’s report, which included legal opinions about the possibility of decertifying the election, clearly involved legal analysis and advice, contrary to his public assertions.
These allegations paint a picture of a high-profile figure who may have used his position to advance a personal and political agenda rather than fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to him. The charges filed against Gableman reflect concerns not only about his conduct during the investigation but also about his broader approach to the task. His actions may have misled both the court and the public, and the regulators argue that his behavior violated professional conduct standards designed to maintain integrity and trust in the legal system.
In conclusion, Gableman’s investigation into the 2020 election and his subsequent legal challenges have drawn significant scrutiny. While the investigation itself failed to substantiate claims of voter fraud, the misconduct charges against Gableman highlight troubling issues regarding honesty, legal ethics, and his adherence to his assigned role. His actions now stand as a cautionary tale about the importance of integrity in the handling of public duties and the potential consequences when that integrity is compromised.
