judgesonmerit.org

The recent events in Wisconsin have brought to a head growing concerns about the independence and integrity of the Wisconsin judiciary. The latest proponent of change? Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. According to a Wisconsin State Journal editorial, Abrahamson “indicated in a memo to her colleagues this week that she wants her Wisconsin Supreme Court to be more transparent.” And even more significant for Wisconsin citizens and fair courts advocates, she also “indicated a willingness to discuss whether high court justices should continue to be elected.”

The editorial refers to many of the growing problems of the Wisconsin Supreme Court—from “vicious and money-soaked” judicial campaigns to “partisan squabbles” to actual “physical altercations.” Like political cartoonist Phil Hands, the editorialist sees the comedy of the situation. “It sounds more like a ‘Three Stooges’ episode than the highest court in Wisconsin carefully and dispassionately deciding sensitive and complicated legal disputes.”

However, as those watching the events in Wisconsin unfold would agree, public distrust in the courts is never funny. “Wisconsin’s wild and bruising judicial elections soil even the reputations of the winning candidates.” The article laments, “These ugly judicial elections, driven by shadowy special interest groups with lots at stake in future court decisions, are a huge contributor to our high court’s embarrassing dysfunction.”

PMC shares the concerns expressed by this editorial regarding the danger of partisan politics and excessive campaign spending. Like the editorialist, we, too, hope that Abrahamson’s “memo this week indicates renewed interest in merit selection — a big reform that’s badly needed to restore trust in high court decisions.”

An editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal argues that the state’s election system is not the best way to pick judges. In fact, the editorial calls the judicial election system “nasty and broken.”

Anticipating another bitter election fight and misleading advertisements based on one candidate’s past employment as a public defender, the editorial predicts a replay of the last election’s nasty campaign ads:

To her credit, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has pledged not to exploit [opposing candidate Randy] Koschnick’s work as a public defender, which she called noble, according to the Associated Press this week. Koschnick is challenging Abrahamson for a 10-year term.

But shadowy special interest groups aren’t likely to follow Abrahamson’s example. Liberal groups mad about the ads that smeared Justice Louis Butler for his work as a public defender last year can now turn the tables by attacking Koschnick, a self-described conservative, for the same supposed offense.

This raises the familiar concerns about third-party spending to influence judicial elections and the increasingly negative tone of such campaigns.  These are serious problems that contribute to decreasing confidence in the impartiality and independence of the courts:

The personal attacks and gutter politics are a disgraceful way for Wisconsin to pick its top court. The quality and independence of the state’s Supreme Court is slipping along with public trust in its decisions.

Selecting justices based on merit — rather than mudslinging — is the answer.

Well put.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is worried about reelection. The vote won’t be held until next year, but in the aftermath of the record-setting 2007 and 2008 Wisconsin judicial elections, she’s already lining up bipartisan support and trying to raise funds. Neatly summing up the problems with judicial elections, her fundraising committee wrote:

“After the last two judicial campaigns, you probably don’t need a sermon on what’s wrong with the way we elected judges in this state, or the embarrassingly small number of people who vote in judicial elections, or the tenor and content of the campaign advertisements sponsored by some organizations… We all know how powerful those 30-second ads can be.”

Judicial elections are getting more expensive everywhere; just think what will happen in Pennsylvania next year.