DO-OVER."

SPEAKER VOS SAYS MOVING TO IMPEACH JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ IS NOT OFF THE TABLE.

HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THIS, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, ZAC SCHULTZ, AT THE CAPITOL.

HI, ZAC.

>> Reporter: HEY, FRED.

>> SO NOW VOS IS TYING POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT TO HOW SHE RULES ON THE CASE, THAT SHE DID NOT RECUSE HERSELF FROM, AND SAYING THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT COULD BE THE DECIDER OVER ALL OF THIS.

AS WE HEARD FROM JUSTICE REBECCA BRADLEY, HE'S NOT ALONE IN WANTING THIS TO GO ALL THE WAY UP.

>> Reporter: WELL, AT THIS POINT, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN GO BECAUSE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IS CONTROLLED BY LIBERALS WHO WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT RULE IN FAVOR AND WOULD SUPPORT JANET PROTASIEWICZ IN HER RECUSAL DECISION.

SO THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, EITHER TO OVERRULE HER DECISION NOT TO RECUSE OR TO OVERRULE ANY DECISION THAT WOULD COME DOWN FROM THE MAJORITY IN THE SUPREME COURT IN WISCONSIN ABOUT CREATING NEW REDISTRICTING MAPS.

AFTER ALL, IT WAS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT LAST TIME WHO KICKED THE ORIGINAL CASE BACK TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, WHICH THEN PUT IN PLACE THOSE CONSERVATIVE MAPS THAT WE ARE UNDER.

REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME AROUND, THE SUPREME COURT WITH JUSTICE HAGEDORN, SIDED WITH GOVERNOR EVERS AND CHOSE DEMOCRATIC MAPS UNTIL THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAID NO.

>> HOW SURPRISING WAS IT THAT FORMER JUSTICE PROSSER AND ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE, FORMER JUSTICE TOLD VOS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO EFFORT TO IMPEACH PROTASIEWICZ?

>> Reporter: WELL, THESE ARE CONSERVATIVES FROM THE SUPREME COURT, BUT THEY'RE STILL FORMER MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

SO IT'S NOT SURPRISING THEY WOULD TRY AND READ THE LAW IN ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE AND IT CLEARLY TALKS ABOUT CONTEMPT CONDUCT AND CORRUPT CONDUCT IN OFFICE.

ALL THESE CAME ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL BEFORE JANET WAS JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ, SO IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ.

IF YOU WERE ACIDIC, ALWAYS ARGUE YOU CAN FIND ANY JUSTICE SOMEWHERE TO TRY AND SAY WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY, SO I THINK YOU COULD ALSO READ INTO THAT THAT SPEAKER VOS SIMPLY DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES RIGHT NOW IN THE ASSEMBLY TO IMPEACH, IF HE WANTED TO, AND THAT HE WOULD NEED SUPPORT FROM OUTSIDE PLACES LIKE FORMER JUSTICES TO SAY, YES, YOU SHOULD DO THIS, IN ORDER TO BRING THE REST OF THIS CAUCUS ALONG.

>> THERE WAS ALSO THE ARGUMENT THAT PROTASIEWICZ SHOULD STEP ASIDE BECAUSE SHE GOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN BUT THE PARTY ISN'T A PARTY IN THE CASE.

DOES THAT HOLD UP IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT?

>> Reporter: IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S UNCLEAR.

THAT WAS PART OF THE CAMPAIGN.

THAT WASN'T PART OF HER TIME IN OFFICE, SO IT SHOULDN'T AFFECT IMPEACHMENT, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHE SPOKE TO IN HER RECUSAL, IN HER DECISION NOT TO RECUSE FROM THESE CASES, WHERE SHE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY A NONPARTY THAT WASN'T BEFORE HER AT THE TIME THE MONEY WAS CONTRIBUTED SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON HER AGENT TO GYMNASIUM THIS -- ABILITY TO DECIDE THIS CASE.

SHE POINTED TO OTHER JUDGES WHO RECEIVED FUNDING FROM CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL INTEREST GROUPS AND SAYING THAT THEY'VE ALL ABOUT INFLUENCED BY THIS AND THEY DIDN'T RECUSE SO SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EITHER.

>> WHAT WAS PROTASIEWICZ SAYING IT MIGHT CONFIRM PRECONCEPTIONS ON THE REDISTRICTING ISSUE?

>> Reporter: WELL, REMEMBER, REDISTRICTING WAS JUST BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE LAST SESSION AND EVERYONE WROTE ON THIS.

THEY WROTE THEIR OWN DISSENTS, THEY WROTE THEIR MAJORITY OPINIONS, SO EVERYONE IS ON THE RECORD IN TERMS OF HOW THEY DID DECIDE THIS CASE.

NOW, THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT THEY SAY WEREN'T ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME.

THE CONSERVATIVES SAY, WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE.

WE JUST DECIDED THAT THIS IS THE PRECEDENT THAT WE SHOULD BE GOING ON UNTIL 10 YEARS FROM NOW AND THE LIBERALS ON THE COURT ARE SAYING, NO, THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.

IT'S A NEW ANGLE.

OF COURSE IT HELPS WHEN AT THE TIME MAJORITY SO THEY CAN SAY THAT -- WHEN AT THE THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY.

THAT COULD BE THE BASIS OF PRECONCEPTIONS, BUT THAT'S ALSO WHY THE SUPREME COURT TYPICALLY DOESN'T DECIDE THE SAME CASE MULTIPLE SESSIONS IN A ROW ONCE THEY DECIDE IT STANDS UNLESS THERE'S A NEW ANGLE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY SAY GROUPS ARE SAYING IS THE REASON WHY THE COURTS SHOULD TAKE THIS ISSUE UP NOW.

>> BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF RECUSAL WITH JUST ABOUT A HALF A MINUTE LEFT, WHAT HAPPENS IF JANET PROTASIEWICZ WAS COMPELLED IN THE END BY THE HIGH COURT TO RECUSE?

>> Reporter: WELL, IF SHE'S NOT ON IT, THEN THERE'S ONLY SIX JUSTICES LEFT.

THEY'RE SPLIT 3-3.

JUSTICE HAGEDORN WOULD BE A SWING VOTE, BUT WE SAW FROM HIS DISSENT IN THE DECISION TO TAKE THE CASE THAT HE DOESN'T THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE, SO MONTH MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, IT WOULD BE DEADLOCKED AND