Retired Judge Criticizes Reappointment of Jim Troupis to Wisconsin Judicial Advisory Committee for His Role in 2020 Election Scheme

On Thursday, March 21, 2024, retired Dane County Circuit Judge Richard G. Niess criticized Jim Troupis’ reappointment to Wisconsin’s Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee in an article published in the Wisconsin Examiner.

The Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee advises Wisconsin state judges on adhering to the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, which aims to uphold the judiciary’s role of enhancing public trust in the legal system. In 2023, the four conservative justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court reappointed Troupis to the committee over objections from the three liberal justices.

Troupis has been involved in numerous controversial activities related to the 2020 election. According to Niess, during his first term on the advisory committee, Troupis conspired with convicted felon Kenneth Chesebro to devise the fake electors scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Troupis also represented former President Donald Trump in unsuccessful legal attempts to invalidate ballots in two Democratic counties.

Previously, Troupis played a role in gerrymandering Wisconsin’s legislative districts favorably for Republicans under then-Governor Scott Walker. He also wrote a controversial decision as a Walker-appointed judge comparing surrogacy for same-sex couples to child trafficking.

Niess argued that instead of reappointing Troupis given this history, the four conservative justices should have disbarred and referred him for criminal investigation for his suspected role in electoral misconduct. However, they rewarded him with a position of public trust on the advisory committee.

Since his reappointment, Troupis has denied any wrongdoing while recently settling a related lawsuit. However, according to Niess, this only shows that Troupis lacks ethics and courage. The judge stated there is no valid reason for Troupis to advise others on proper judicial conduct.

While criticizing the Supreme Court’s past weakening of recusal rules written by campaign donors, Niess questioned why the current court majority has not removed Troupis in light of his actions. In conclusion, he argued Troupis’ membership undermines the advisory committee’s purpose and public respect for Wisconsin’s judicial system.

Source: Wisconsin Examiner