Article III of the Constitution of the United States is the “judicial” article which defines one of the three equal branches of our federal government. In the Wisconsin Constitution the Judiciary is in Article VII. The Article III Project, formed in 2017, is described as “defends constitutionalist judges, opposes judicial and Justice Department nominees outside the mainstream, and advocates for the rule of law.” (Cause IQ) The description continues “Its programs include defending constitutional judges and opposing judicial and Justice Department nominees that don’t adhere to the mainstream.”

One source on the Article III Project listed “Protect Judiciary”, “Fight Big Tech”, and “Defend Free Speech” as its priorities. The same article talked about “oppose the radical court-packing, term-limit, and judicial impeachment schemes”. Another source included “Lawfare” (protect good constitutional judges) and “Confirm” (Stop bad judges and confirm those who support the Constitution) as priorities of the Article III Project.

Both Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Senate Judiciary Chairman, and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former Senate Majority Leader, have offered glowing endorsements. Former Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) also praised Mr. Davis (the founder) for his efforts. The New York Times wrote “Founder Mike Davis is known as a ‘take-no-prisoners conservative eager to challenge the left with hardball tactics’.”

The national news about the federal judges interfering with President Trump’s efforts certainly explains the need for the Article III Project -- especially when it comes to the “inferior courts” referenced in Article III Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In Wisconsin, there should be a “Project VII” with a similar vision and mission, although I suspect there are some organizations that touch on some of the concerns.

“Honest Political Ads are Out of Reach” was the title of a recent opinion piece in a conservative tabloid (Wisconsin Conservative Digest, May 2025). The opinion piece commented on both the quantity and quality of the ads leading up to the Supreme Court election on April Fool’s Day, 2025. It further commented on the out-of-state dollars that were paying for these ads and asked if this was a state’s rights issue? The article had a lengthy discussion on this worthy of further considerations. There are questions here that will not be easily answered but need to be asked anyway.

The numerous ads on the untested rape kits come to mind. From the number of ads, and all the articles written on the topic, it seems hard to believe that they were all about the exact same story! One side or the other was stretching the truth; not telling the entire story; or maybe telling outright lies! And, based on this mis-information the voters selected a Supreme Court Justice for the next ten years!

Another, perhaps more serious, is the question that comes from the judicial candidates that share how they plan to vote on certain issues that may come before the court. In America our judicial temperament is based on the rule of law and one is innocent until found guilty. Judges knowingly telling how they are going to find a case before it is heard leads to prejudgment based on personal likes or dislikes. It is like giving the answer before the question is asked!

According to Decision Magazine “In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court educated the Wisconsin Supreme Court, overturning its unconstitutional conclusion that helping the poor and needy without proselytizing is not religious enough.” Seems “The Wisconsin Supreme Court tried to play theologian and said that the Catholic Charities Bureau’s services to the poor and needy were not religious enough to qualify for a religious exemption,” I am not surprised that there may have been a difference of opinion on the Wisconsin Supreme Court but surprised that it was such a clear case that all nine Supreme Court Justices ruled the same way (and against the Wisconsin Supreme Court).

It may be eight months until the next judicial elections in April so it won’t be long until candidates are known. In all cases, nomination papers must be filed very early in January – only five months away. “We the people” need to do some homework and be prepared to ask the candidates some “tough questions”. We need to assure the judicial candidates set aside personal likes and dislikes and preside over their courts based on the rule of law. We need to find the Wisconsin version of “The Article III Project” and share their observations with our fellow conservative citizens.