AND TAKE AND MAYBE AN ALTERNATE COMPROMISE PROPOSAL.

>> IN ELECTION NEWS, FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, EVERY MAJOR DECISION BY THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN MADE BY ONE MAN, JUSTICE BRAN HAGEDORN HE OFTEN GIVES A 4-3 ADVANTAGE BUT HE SIDES WITH THE THREE LIBERALS INFURIATING HIS CONSERVATIVE COLLEAGUES.

"HERE & NOW" REPORTER ZAC SCHULTZ REPORTS HOW HAGEDORN'S STREAK ON THE COURT HAS BECOME A FACTOR IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION COMING UP NEXT TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21.

>> I THINK IT'S NO SECRET HE AND I DISAGREED ON SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

>> OF THE FOUR CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, DANIEL KELLY IS THE MOST OUTSPOKEN ABOUT JUSTICE BRIAN HAGEDORN.

>> IT'S NOT PERSONAL OPINION, IT'S NOT PREFERENCES.

THIS IS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.

SO WE DISAGREE ON A PROFOUND LEVEL ON SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.

>> KELLY AND HAGEDORN WERE ON THE COURT TOGETHER ONE YEAR BEFORE KELLY LOST HIS RE-ELECTION BID IN 2020.

THEY WERE ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE VERSUS POLE IN BATTLING THE PANDEMIC.

AFTER KELLY LOST HAGEDORN'S PROMINENCE INCREASED AND HE SIDED WITH LIBERALS TO KEEP THE GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES OFF THE BALLOT AND IN THE GO FORWARD WHERE DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO THROW OUT SOME ELECTIONS.

>> HE WAS ELECTED AND WHEN HIS TERM WAS UP IF HE CHOOSES TO RUN AGAIN HE WILL NEED TO MAKE A REPORT OF HIS WORK TO THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN.

>> BRIAN HAGEDORN DECLINED TO COMMENT FOR THE STORY.

HIS TERM IS NOT OVER UNTIL 2029 BUT IT HASN'T STOPPED KELLY FROM USING HAGEDORN AS A FOIL TELLING VOTERS THEY SHOULDN'T SERVE FOR CANDIDATE DOROW BECAUSE SHE COULD BE ANOTHER HAGEDORN.

>> YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ELECT A CANDIDATE TO FIND OUT IF THEY ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE.

THAT WAS THE POSITION WE WERE IN WITH BRIAN HAGEDORN.

IT DOESN'T WORK OUT SO WELL.

>> JENNIFER DOROW HAD LITTLE TO SAY ABOUT JUSTICE HAGEDORN EXCEPT TO NOTE WHOEVER WINS THE ELECTION WILL BE SERVING WITH HIM ON THE COURT.

>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM OR HIS METHODOLOGY.

WHAT I CAN DO IS FOCUS ON WHAT I WILL BRING TO THE COURT AND THAT IS AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF EACH CASE.

TO BRING COLLEGIALITY TO THE COURT AS WELL.

TO WORK WITH ALL OF THE JUSTICES ON THE BENCH AS WE WRESTLE WITH REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES.

>> THE TWO LIBERAL CANDIDATES ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE DIRECTLY COMPARED TO HAGEDORN BECAUSE HE'S A CONSERVATIVE BUT DO LIKE HIS IMAGE AS INDEPENDENT.

>> WHEN BRIAN KELLY CALLED OUT HAGEDORN AS SUPREMELY UNRELIABLE BECAUSE HE VOTED AGAINST THE BLOCK AND EXERTED HIS INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND HE'S LABELLED AS SUPREMELY UNRELIABLE?

LIKE IT'S A BAD THING?

>> I SEE HIM DOING WHAT JUDGES AND JUSTICES HOPEFULLY DO, DOES NOT BECOME SO RIGID IN IDEOLOGY YOU CAN'T LISTEN OR BE MOVED BY THE FACTS IN FRONT OF YOU.

THAT'S WHAT WE ALL SHOULD AS SPIRE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS MOVE INSIDE THAT SPACE BECAUSE THE FACTS CAN SOMETIMES PULL YOU IN THE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

>> IF MITCHELL WINS THEY WOULD CREATE A MAJORITY.

WOULD VOTERS EXPECT THEM TO OCCASIONALLY FRUSTRATE SUPPORTERS BY SHOWING INDEPENDENCE?

>> I THINK THE IDEA YOU CAN ANTICIPATE WHAT PEOPLE RULE IS WHY OUR COURTS LOSE LEGITIMACY.

IT SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE CURIOSITY OF THE FACTS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU NOT PEOPLE SAYING WELL, I KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD DO AND EXACTLY HOW TO FRAME THE CASE BASED ON WHO IS IN THE SEAT.

>> BE INDEPENDENT IS WHAT EVERYBODY SHOULD DO.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PRE DETERMINE WHAT A SUPREME COURT'S GOING TO DO.

THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE LAW, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND YOU HEAR LOOK AT THIS.

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS JUSTICE HAGEDORN DIDN'T DO WHAT WE THOUGHT HE'D DO AND NOW HE'S SUPREMELY UNRELIABLE?

MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED