Almost two months ago, Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson publicly kicked off her campaign for re-election to the state Supreme Court.

So far, Abrahamson’s bid to extend her tenure on the bench of the high court well past four decades hasn’t garnered any public opposition.

The election landscape could change along with seasons, much the same way it did last year, although some political science professors suggest any opponents may wait until after Nov. 4 to show.

Kyle Richmond, spokesman for the state Elections Board, said nobody had filed nomination papers to challenge Abraham-son as of July 23.

“Although an opponent could appear at any time, there’s no hurry for the person to declare,” said University of Wisconsin Political Science Professor Barry C. Burden. “Most people, including potential donors, will be preoccupied by the presidential election.”

No Challengers Yet

That was not the case last year, as both opponents of incumbent Justice Louis B. Butler Jr. announced before November, absent a race for the White House.

Madison area attorney Charles Schutze emerged last August to challenge Butler, but bowed out soon after citing health reasons. Eventual winner, Judge Michael J. Gableman officially entered the race in October.

Butler campaigned throughout last summer, but the head start did not translate to victory.

According to Abrahamson’s continuing report filed with the State Elections Board on July 21, she has already raised more than $234,000. The report also indicates Abrahamson has spent about $29,000, with about $16,000 going toward printing and mailing costs.

On his July continuing report last year, Butler indicated he had raised more than $155,000 and spent approximately $21,000.

Even though a relative unknown unseated a Supreme Court incumbent for the first time in more than 40 years, UW Political Science Professor John Coleman said it is hard to compare election scenarios from recent years to the current race.

He points out that three recent Supreme Court candidates — Clifford, Ziegler and Gableman — have been virtual unknowns and the other, Butler, had already lost one bid for the bench.

“So it is quite possible that people are looking in all the wrong places and the next candidate will, again, be a surprise,” said Coleman. “And if I’m a well-known person, do I want to get into a fight with the chief justice and most of the Wisconsin political establishment that is desperate to save that seat?”

Abrahamson is traveling on another leg of her 72-county judicial listening session tour and could not be reached for comment, nor could anyone at her campaign headquarters in Madison. Abrahamson, the longest serving member of the high court, has been on the bench since she was first appointed in 1976.

Outside Interest

Jim Pugh, a spokesperson for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) said he did not know if and when any opponents to Abrahamson will surface. He declined to speculate on whether the organization would support a challenger to the chief justice.

“We wouldn’t make any decisions until the candidates are announced and then we’ll review records and agendas,” said Pugh. “Until then, all we’ll be doing is keeping an eye on things.”

Burden suggested that if WMC provides the same level of funding for a challenger that it did for Gableman, there is not much pressure on a candidate to enter early just for fundraising purposes.

According to figures from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, WMC spent more than $1.7 million on issue ads in support of Gableman during last year’s campaign.

“Without WMC backing, Abrahamson has an incentive to be fundraising continuously between now and the election,” said Burden. “Don’t expect any ads to be run until after this fall’s general election though.”

Coleman also said it’s not out of the question that nobody will challenge Abraham-son, 73, because of the possibility she may not serve an entire 10-year term.

“It’s not inconceivable that the chief justice would win re-election and then step down while there is a Democrat in the governor’s office, which would result in an appointment to the bench,” said Coleman. “That newly appointed justice would, presumably, be weaker going into re-election than the chief justice is.”