My decision to vote for Dan Kelly for Wisconsin supreme court resulted from considering the macrostructure of Wisconsin’s state government.

To wit: As a conservative who appreciates the preservation of the status quo — a split government — I find the idea of a strongly conservative legislature, a prudent and unobtrusive court that upholds the state constitution, and a hapless Democratic governor to be about as good as it gets (barring the ascendancy of an especially excellent conservative governor).

A vote for Kelly, in actuality, is a vote for center-right conservative Brian Hagedorn’s position as the “swing” vote on the state’s seven-justice supreme court. The remaining six justices will then act as ideological outriggers (3–3) on the judicial trimaran — Kelly being that third crewman on the right.

Abstention from voting was something I considered (I’ve written in the past about my doubts concerning Kelly), but Janet Protasiewicz’s lean toward judicial activism — and the ability to do so with a 4–3 advantage — endangers the broader picture.

Voting for Kelly is voting for one-seventh of a structure. I’d like that structure to resemble the Ashwaubenon Cabela’s roofline — almost symmetrical but with a fundamental bias to the right.