State Supreme Court justices can mislead voters, they just can't lie to them.
That was the unfortunate message conveyed last Thursday by a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel when it recommended the court dismiss an ethics complaint against Justice Michael Gableman. The ruling served as further evidence that judicial elections in Wisconsin are in dire need of a cleanup.
The panel, which includes retired appellate court judge David Deininger of Monroe, unanimously recommended the dismissal of charges Gableman broken an ethics rule with a 2008 campaign attack advertisement that insinuated Justice Louis Butler contributed to putting a child molester back on the streets.
The ad accused Butler of finding "a loophole" when he worked as a public defender representing child sex offender Reuben Lee Mitchell.
"Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child. Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court," the ad said.
Butler did get an appellate court to overturn Mitchell's conviction because evidence was improperly admitted at trial. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled the evidence error was not enough to overturn the conviction. Mitchell served his sentence, was paroled and committed a subsequent crime three years after his release.
Clearly, the Gableman ad left the impression that Butler worked to get Mitchell out of prison, freeing him to commit another sex crime. But the ad didn't actually say that, which is why the panel correctly recommended the ethics charge be dropped. The Supreme Court still can rule differently, of course. But no one expects it, given the court's philosophical makeup.
It is not the panel's fault that the nature of political campaigns encourages candidates to mislead and manipulate the truth, nor was it the panel's place to suggest a remedy for the sorry status of judicial elections in Wisconsin.
But the panel did address its disappointment that Gableman participated in misleading voters. Deininger scolded Gableman for the misleading ad.
"More troubling than the misleading implication (in the ad) is the advertisement's disdain for the role of defense counsel in our adversary system," Deininger wrote.
Fault obviously rests with Gableman for twisting facts to create an unfair impression in a campaign ad. But the greater problem is that money has polluted judicial elections to the point that the system's integrity has been jeopardized.
While proposed legislation that would encourage public financing of judicial campaigns is a step in the right direction, the better and more complete path may be to appoint, rather than elect, state Supreme Court justices. Either way, it's a sad day indeed when a judge's only punishment for misleading voters is a rebuke.
That was the unfortunate message conveyed last Thursday by a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel when it recommended the court dismiss an ethics complaint against Justice Michael Gableman. The ruling served as further evidence that judicial elections in Wisconsin are in dire need of a cleanup.
The panel, which includes retired appellate court judge David Deininger of Monroe, unanimously recommended the dismissal of charges Gableman broken an ethics rule with a 2008 campaign attack advertisement that insinuated Justice Louis Butler contributed to putting a child molester back on the streets.
The ad accused Butler of finding "a loophole" when he worked as a public defender representing child sex offender Reuben Lee Mitchell.
"Butler found a loophole. Mitchell went on to molest another child. Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court," the ad said.
Butler did get an appellate court to overturn Mitchell's conviction because evidence was improperly admitted at trial. The State Supreme Court, however, ruled the evidence error was not enough to overturn the conviction. Mitchell served his sentence, was paroled and committed a subsequent crime three years after his release.
Clearly, the Gableman ad left the impression that Butler worked to get Mitchell out of prison, freeing him to commit another sex crime. But the ad didn't actually say that, which is why the panel correctly recommended the ethics charge be dropped. The Supreme Court still can rule differently, of course. But no one expects it, given the court's philosophical makeup.
It is not the panel's fault that the nature of political campaigns encourages candidates to mislead and manipulate the truth, nor was it the panel's place to suggest a remedy for the sorry status of judicial elections in Wisconsin.
But the panel did address its disappointment that Gableman participated in misleading voters. Deininger scolded Gableman for the misleading ad.
"More troubling than the misleading implication (in the ad) is the advertisement's disdain for the role of defense counsel in our adversary system," Deininger wrote.
Fault obviously rests with Gableman for twisting facts to create an unfair impression in a campaign ad. But the greater problem is that money has polluted judicial elections to the point that the system's integrity has been jeopardized.
While proposed legislation that would encourage public financing of judicial campaigns is a step in the right direction, the better and more complete path may be to appoint, rather than elect, state Supreme Court justices. Either way, it's a sad day indeed when a judge's only punishment for misleading voters is a rebuke.
