I think she took it to federal court for two reasons. 1) she doesn’t believe that state courts will find in her favor (and she’d have to recuse when it gets to her court – and she doesn’t think she’ll be elected by her peers either) and 2) as the State is a party, it can fall into federal jurisdiction.

She knew the change in the selection process was on the ballot when she ran for reelection.

No, actually, she wasn’t the justice up for reelection this year, so that’s not true. (She actually claims in her lawsuit that she would not have run for reelection several years ago if there would have been a question about whether she would continue to be chief justice. Frankly, I suspect she perjured herself by claiming this, but that’s impossible to prove.)

I do that too for the same reasons. it may be a feeble effort, but that should never stop us.

The new law does not change how she is elected; in fact it doesn’t change any election at all. It simply changes the way the Chief Justice is selected which is not the same thing. He suit is just sour grapes, and nothing more substantive than that is involved.

But this isn’t about how a judge will be elected, it is about how the Chief will be selected among his/her peers.

In lieu of seniority (no decision by the judges of the court) there will be a new a periodic decision on who should lead the 9. I can’t imagine that a Federal court really will want to insert itself into a biannual election conducted by 9 people in a room in Madison WI.