Keep Electing Justices
In the wake of the defeat of State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler on April 1 (despite the Glazerbeam endorsement), State Rep. Fred Kessler (D, Milwaukee) (1) has proposed an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution. Instead of electing justices to a ten-year term, Kessler would have the Governor nominate a justice, subject to confirmation by the State Senate. Every ten years at least 13 members of the State Senate (out of 33) would have to re-confirm the justice.
Under the present system the Governor fills vacancies on all Wisconsin state courts, so many (if not most) justices were initially appointed to their current or previous judicial positions. Incumbent justices are rarely defeated for re-election; the last time was in 1967 when Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Robert W Hansen beat Justice George R Currie.
I am among the large number of Wisconsin voters who became disgusted with the plethora of attack ads during the 2008 Supreme Court campaign. The worst of them did not even urge viewers to vote against a candidate, but rather to "call him and tell him you want higher judicial standards" or the like. Since this type of ad does not urge voting one way or the other, it is not subject to state campaign finance law.
It appears that the best way to win a judicial race is to convince the voters that your opponent is "soft on crime." Suppose you are running against a " Mr Schmidt"; here are some proven ways to help you win:
1. If Schmidt was ever a defense lawyer, show that he won a case. (2)
2. If Schmidt was ever a prosecutor, show that he once reduced a charge or recommended less than the maximum sentence.
3. If he is (or was ever) a trial judge, show that he found a defendant not-guilty or sentenced him to less than the maximum.
4. If Schmidt is (or was ever) an appellate judge or justice, show that he once voted to reverse a conviction.
5. If Schmidt was never any of the above, claim that he lacks the requisite experience in criminal law to be on the bench.
Candidates who believe they have been slandered during a judicial campaign can file a complaint with the State Bar or the local district attorney, but probably no action will be taken until after the election. Even if the charge is sustained, unless the guilty party was the other candidate himself, it will have no bearing on who serves in the office.
Attack ads, as reprehensible as they may be, are still exercises of our right to criticize public officials and those who seek public office. Citizens who want to spend their money expressing their views on politics should have the right to do so, provided only that all expenditures related to elections are fully disclosed. (Even for ads that that say "call" instead of "vote.")
But then, why not just pass Rep. Kessler's bill?
Because members of the State Supreme Court are powerful public officials. Four (out of seven) of them can overturn the decision of the Legislature and the Governor by declaring a law unconstitutional. (3) Democracy requires that officials holding such power be answerable directly to the people through contested elections.
Despite the problems with the current system, it enables us to get the justices we as a people deserve. If we choose foolishly, we will live with the consequences. We are entitled to no more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Kessler, who is a former judge himself, is the husband of Appeals Court Judge Joan Kessler, who defeated incumbent Charles Schudson in 2004 after a particularly nasty campaign.
(2)This point is particularly valuable if the defendant in this case is subsequently convicted of a vicious crime.
(2) The US Supreme Court could reverse a state supreme court decision of this type, but this is very, very unlikely.
Under the present system the Governor fills vacancies on all Wisconsin state courts, so many (if not most) justices were initially appointed to their current or previous judicial positions. Incumbent justices are rarely defeated for re-election; the last time was in 1967 when Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Robert W Hansen beat Justice George R Currie.
I am among the large number of Wisconsin voters who became disgusted with the plethora of attack ads during the 2008 Supreme Court campaign. The worst of them did not even urge viewers to vote against a candidate, but rather to "call him and tell him you want higher judicial standards" or the like. Since this type of ad does not urge voting one way or the other, it is not subject to state campaign finance law.
It appears that the best way to win a judicial race is to convince the voters that your opponent is "soft on crime." Suppose you are running against a " Mr Schmidt"; here are some proven ways to help you win:
1. If Schmidt was ever a defense lawyer, show that he won a case. (2)
2. If Schmidt was ever a prosecutor, show that he once reduced a charge or recommended less than the maximum sentence.
3. If he is (or was ever) a trial judge, show that he found a defendant not-guilty or sentenced him to less than the maximum.
4. If Schmidt is (or was ever) an appellate judge or justice, show that he once voted to reverse a conviction.
5. If Schmidt was never any of the above, claim that he lacks the requisite experience in criminal law to be on the bench.
Candidates who believe they have been slandered during a judicial campaign can file a complaint with the State Bar or the local district attorney, but probably no action will be taken until after the election. Even if the charge is sustained, unless the guilty party was the other candidate himself, it will have no bearing on who serves in the office.
Attack ads, as reprehensible as they may be, are still exercises of our right to criticize public officials and those who seek public office. Citizens who want to spend their money expressing their views on politics should have the right to do so, provided only that all expenditures related to elections are fully disclosed. (Even for ads that that say "call" instead of "vote.")
But then, why not just pass Rep. Kessler's bill?
Because members of the State Supreme Court are powerful public officials. Four (out of seven) of them can overturn the decision of the Legislature and the Governor by declaring a law unconstitutional. (3) Democracy requires that officials holding such power be answerable directly to the people through contested elections.
Despite the problems with the current system, it enables us to get the justices we as a people deserve. If we choose foolishly, we will live with the consequences. We are entitled to no more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Kessler, who is a former judge himself, is the husband of Appeals Court Judge Joan Kessler, who defeated incumbent Charles Schudson in 2004 after a particularly nasty campaign.
(2)This point is particularly valuable if the defendant in this case is subsequently convicted of a vicious crime.
(2) The US Supreme Court could reverse a state supreme court decision of this type, but this is very, very unlikely.
Labels: Butler Kessler, Justice
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:05 AM
1 comments
