Let's face it, most voters know very little about Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates when they go to the polls. Because candidates aren't allowed to discuss how they'd vote on specific issues as justices, traditionally there has been little public attention paid to these very important decisions.
Now, with the skyrocketing increase in dollars spent on Supreme Court races by political action committees and special interest groups, justice candidates are more in the public eye. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Now, attack ads - mostly paid for by faceless and unaccountable political groups - teach voters very little about what is important to know about the candidates, while giving the campaigns an unsavory flavor unbecoming of the position at stake. Now, millions of dollars are being spent to tear down Supreme Court candidates that way candidates for political offices tear down each other.
As a recent story by the Associated Press put it, if you believe the onslaught of ads for the state Supreme Court race, one candidate has spent his career working to set criminals free and the other only got where he is because of political favors. If that were true, why would either of the candidates - Justice Louis Butler, appointed to the court by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2004, and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gabelman, who has the support of Republican and business interests - deserve to serve on the state's highest court?
Jay Heck, director of Common Cause Wisconsin, called this campaign "far and away the most despicable ... for any state office in Wisconsin that I can remember."
It's certainly no way to select a Supreme Court justice, who serves for 10 years.
The way to correct the course is to eliminate the special-interest influence in judicial elections. There is legislation being championed by State Rep. Steve Hilgenberg, D-Dodgeville, and others that would provide public financing of judicial campaigns. It's certainly an idea with merit.
But perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a proposal made Friday by State Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, is the answer.
Kessler announced that he will offer an amendment to the state constitution that would have Supreme Court justices appointed by the governor and confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. After a first 10-year term, Kessler says, justices would be automatically reappointed unless 13 or less of the 33 Senate members vote for reappointment in a reconfirmation vote. If the justice is not reconfirmed by the Senate, the governor would appoint a new justice.
U.S. Supreme Court justices are political appointments who serve until they retire. The process certainly is far from perfect and is not free from politics. Unfortunately, there will be no proposal that eliminates politics from judicial appointments.
But it is clear that Wisconsin needs to eliminate special-interest money and political mudslinging from its judicial decisions.
"Something must be done to protect the integrity of the state's highest court," Kessler said. "If the public believes that positions on the bench are for sale to the highest bidder, the institution is severely undermined. We must remove the necessity to spend substantial amounts of money from the process of selecting Supreme Court justices."
We couldn't agree more. Public financing of judicial campaigns would be good. Putting an end to Supreme Court elections all together might be even better.
Now, with the skyrocketing increase in dollars spent on Supreme Court races by political action committees and special interest groups, justice candidates are more in the public eye. That's not necessarily a good thing.
Now, attack ads - mostly paid for by faceless and unaccountable political groups - teach voters very little about what is important to know about the candidates, while giving the campaigns an unsavory flavor unbecoming of the position at stake. Now, millions of dollars are being spent to tear down Supreme Court candidates that way candidates for political offices tear down each other.
As a recent story by the Associated Press put it, if you believe the onslaught of ads for the state Supreme Court race, one candidate has spent his career working to set criminals free and the other only got where he is because of political favors. If that were true, why would either of the candidates - Justice Louis Butler, appointed to the court by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2004, and Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gabelman, who has the support of Republican and business interests - deserve to serve on the state's highest court?
Jay Heck, director of Common Cause Wisconsin, called this campaign "far and away the most despicable ... for any state office in Wisconsin that I can remember."
It's certainly no way to select a Supreme Court justice, who serves for 10 years.
The way to correct the course is to eliminate the special-interest influence in judicial elections. There is legislation being championed by State Rep. Steve Hilgenberg, D-Dodgeville, and others that would provide public financing of judicial campaigns. It's certainly an idea with merit.
But perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a proposal made Friday by State Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, is the answer.
Kessler announced that he will offer an amendment to the state constitution that would have Supreme Court justices appointed by the governor and confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. After a first 10-year term, Kessler says, justices would be automatically reappointed unless 13 or less of the 33 Senate members vote for reappointment in a reconfirmation vote. If the justice is not reconfirmed by the Senate, the governor would appoint a new justice.
U.S. Supreme Court justices are political appointments who serve until they retire. The process certainly is far from perfect and is not free from politics. Unfortunately, there will be no proposal that eliminates politics from judicial appointments.
But it is clear that Wisconsin needs to eliminate special-interest money and political mudslinging from its judicial decisions.
"Something must be done to protect the integrity of the state's highest court," Kessler said. "If the public believes that positions on the bench are for sale to the highest bidder, the institution is severely undermined. We must remove the necessity to spend substantial amounts of money from the process of selecting Supreme Court justices."
We couldn't agree more. Public financing of judicial campaigns would be good. Putting an end to Supreme Court elections all together might be even better.
