Time For Merit Selection Of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices

Today the Wisconsin State Journal hit the nail on the head in their editorial concerning the spring elections.  Sadly, too few will make it to the final paragraphs in the piece, or think twice about it.

One of the issues where my thinking has evolved to the largest degree over time has to do with the way we select judges to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.  Twenty years ago I was a strong supporter of the election process which allowed state citizens a direct voice in electing judges. 

I admit there seems something very ‘American’ about the process.  I know there is still a very strong public desire for such elections, as people think that this process allows them to make for a better court system. 

But what is happening to the role of justice in Wisconsin with the blending of very costly campaigns that blur into political races should concern all of us.  The end result is not a better court system, but instead a fractured and deteriorated one. 

That we have allowed supreme court races to become multimillion dollar slugfests is undermining the way justice is conducted on the high court.  After all, the Supreme Court  has refused to adopt a rule on when specific campaign contributions should trigger recusals from cases that are pending before the justices.  That we even need to talk about such issues should send a clear signal that something is wrong, and a remedy is required.

My concern is that the rule of law, and the elevated stature of the judiciary are in jeopardy.  These are  important matters to consider.  I do not think just anyone should be allowed to place their name on the ballot, raise huge amounts of money from special interest sources, and manipulate the voters with never-ending TV commercials.  Justice should not be so easily manipulated.

This may smack some as elitist.  To them I ask they answer two concerns I have.

First, should the style that we witnessed this past November when electing Congress be a model for the way we elect a member to the supreme court? 

Second, does a slick series of ads from faceless contributors with deep pockets mean the candidate has the necessary skills or ethics to well serve the public, or the letter of the law?

I do not feel that those who think it is ‘their right’ to elect supreme court justices ever ponder the larger questions of process and ethics.

Therefore I am in complete agreement with what the WSJ penned today.

Then there’s the state Supreme Court race, which is shaping up to be another mud bath featuring millions of dollars in attack ads soiling the high court’s image. It’s a terrible way to select our top judges, who unlike other elected officials are supposed to be impartial and insulated from public influence.

For now, Wisconsin is stuck with its badly flawed judicial elections. And it’s hard to see how public financing of campaigns will change much, given that special interest groups can still spend whatever they want.

There is a way to correct the problems which comes from electing justices.   That would be just stop electing them!

We should strongly consider, and then implement the merit selection system for placing a judge on the high court.

There are different ways that merit selection can work.  But the process could start with a nonpartisan group that would recommend names for the court.  Then either the governor or legislature might make the selection.  After a set number of years the voters could then vote yes or no on retaining that person for another term. 

What appeals to me so very much is the idea that the first step in the process would insure that only highly qualified and thoughtful names would be advanced.  The ones with low ethical standards that do not mesh with our ideals, or those without intelligence that reflects our needs would be weeded out. 

The likes of  Annette Ziegler or a  Michael Gableman would never surface when the goal is to have the best and brightest serve. 

To allow for the corroded electoral process of electing justices to continue does not serve the greater good, or live up to the standards of justice that we (hopefully) were taught in civics class.

Wisconsin Should Listen To Sandra Day O’Connor

Over the past decade Wisconsin has seen an increase in the tension and cost of electing members to the Supreme Court.  In the recent past we have elected after vitriol-filled campaigns Annette Zielger and Michael Gableman, both controversial candidates to the court.  The manner in which they ran for the bench did not enhance the image of the court, or benefit our judicial system.  The current electoral flaws that allow a Ziegler or a Gableman to become a justice sends the wrong message about how importantly we should view our judicial system.  At a time when public approval of our government and public institutions shrinks there should be ideas advanced that would reverse that sad downward trend.

Merit selection is one such remedy that would put the brakes on the downward slope that electoral politics is taking the Supreme Court.  I was very pleased to read that Sandra Day O’Connor, a former member of the United States Supreme Court, made an intelligent plea for merit selection while speaking in Washington.

The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court says there’s a serious problem with the government in Washington and many other states: They elect their judges.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke Monday at a Seattle University Law School conference. She told a sold-out audience that threats to judicial independence are rising exponentially as more and more money pours into judicial races around the country.

O’Connor said she advocates a system by which nonpartisan commissions select judges based on their merit. At the end of a judge’s term, voters could decide whether to retain them.

Multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns make it difficult to know whether a judge is deciding a case based on the merits or on concerns about reelection, she said.

She noted that the founders of the country believed it crucially important that federal judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers. It was only after President Andrew Jackson’s election in 1828 that he persuaded states to begin adopting elections for judges.

Referring to cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed school segregation, O’Connor said, “Consider whether those hugely unpopular decision would have come to pass if judges had to stand for upcoming elections.”

What Motivates And Guides Caffeinated Politics?

I was reminded this past week that with over 2,500 posts on this blog, there are some over-riding themes and principles that are repeated over and over.  I thought it might be fun to think of the guiding issues and principles found on this blog, and write them down.

…. The process of governing is more important than the politics of any issue.  In addition a  fair and orderly atmosphere both in electing officals, and creating legislation is required to insure a fair and equal playing field.

….Campaign money, and the ever-consuming need for more and more of it,  pollutes the political process, and undermines the enactment of sound public policy.

…. The Supreme Court (both state and national) requires the highest and most ethical standards applied to applicants.  In the states, it is more appropriate to appoint justices through the merit selection process than to have elections for the judiciary.

…. Drunk driving is a most troubling  problem that will require tough-minded legislators being more interested in doing what is right, than  carrying alcohol for the Tavern League.

…. Tough anti-smoking laws are just common sense.

…. Going with principle (Dubai deal) is more important than following the prevailing political mood.

…. Torture is wrong, and spawns more terrorists while undermining a nation’s moral code.

…. Darfur needs the world.  Sadly, history will severely judge the  majorityfor not caring.

…. Preventive wars are a waste  of a nation’s  treasured resources.

….Israel needs to stop the illegal settlement policy, and Palestinians should have, must have, and will have a homeland to call their own.  When it comes to Israel the tail must stop wagging the dog.

….Polar bears are needing us to care more about them, and to reach an understanding about the need to address climate change.

…. Gun control is needed to insure the safety of the citizenry.  Strict regulations on the manufacture, sale, registration, and usage is the means for a safer nation.

…. Marriage matters, for all.   Period.

…. Cheating on a partner, married or otherwise, is smarmy and wrong.  Getting preachy about this issue is still OK.

…. Books are some of our best friends.

…. Just because a singer is older does not mean that they have less value or creative ability.

…. History is in need of more study and understanding, not only in our schools, but also with the average citizen of this nation.

….Never underestimate the lack of humor from Mormons.

…. Never underestimate the damage one Bishop (Molrino) can cause.

…. When it looks like it is a slow news day check in on the antics of Sarah Palin and the Clampetts of Palinland.

…. Newspapers are the foundation for long-form investigative reporting, and an essential ingredient to democracy.

….Journalists are as vital to the nations democracy and well being as our soldiers, sailors. and air force.

….Radio and TV personalities should be considered guests in our house, and when they offend should be rejected from our premises. 

…. Elvis is still The King.

…. So is Roy Acuff.

…. The Grand Ole Opry is a national treasure, and true slice of Americana.

Justice Michael Gableman Proves Character Of Wisconsin State Supreme Court Worrisome

Not for the first time do I write about the changes that are taking place both in the way Wisconsin State Supreme Court races are conducted, or the type of individual that is at times winning statewide elections to the bench. 

That we should expect only the highest caliber of intellect and character to sit on the Supreme Court should go without saying.  To desire a judicial process that is lacking conflicts of interest or ethical lapses would seem to be near a unanimous point of view.  One would hope to have an ethical and illuminating election process for the Court.  All these should be unwritten rules.

Sadly none of the above is true in Wisconsin, as demonstrated over the past couple of years with the election of ethically challenged Annette Zielger, and the mentally deficient Michael Gableman.  To have watched the last two races conducted in the state meant that every ideal we ever had for the Supreme Court had to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.  It is due to the erosion of needed standards for the Court, which I feel we must maintain, that leads me to advocate for merit selection of Supreme Court judges.

The last blow to the sensibilities of those who care about the Court was of course the election of Michael Gableman.  During his campaign it was noted he was not telling the truth about his opponent, Louis Butler.  Now there is a process that is starting which will need to investigate the misleading and factually incorrect ads that were aired by the Gableman campaign.  This is really not how the electoral process for a court seat should be conducted.

The state Judicial Commission levied charges today against state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, alleging he knowingly misrepresented facts in a campaign ad that helped elect him in April.

It is the second time a Supreme Court justice has had ethics charges filed against him or her, and it again comes just after a highly charged election. Last year, Justice Annette Ziegler was formally reprimanded by her colleagues on the court for violating a conflict-of-interest code based on a Judicial Commission investigation.

Gableman ran a TV ad in March that said his opponent, Justice Louis Butler, got sex offender Rueben Lee Mitchell off on appeal and that Mitchell went on to attack another child. Unmentioned in the ad was that Butler was a public defender – not a judge – when he worked on Mitchell’s case and that the Supreme Court overturned the appeal Butler won. Mitchell remained in prison during the appeals process and did not commit another crime until after he was released on parole.

“The advertisement directly implied and was intended to convey the message that action or conduct of Louis Butler enabled or resulted in Mitchell’s release and Mitchell’s subsequent commission of a criminal molestation.

“Each of these statements of fact constituting the message is false,” the commission wrote in its complaint.

There will be those who are so fixated on controlling the Court for the special big business lobbying groups that bought the last two seats, that they will reject any notion for fixing the glaring problem.

I think I can speak for the rest of us who do not care for the tone of the recent Court races, or the end result that then needs to be investigated and penalized.  We have had enough, and want a Court that is worthy of the civics lessons we learned while in school and college. 

We want a Court that again meets our ideals.

Technorati Tags: MichaelGablman, LouisButler, WisconsinStateSupremeCourt, Wisconsin, Law

Merit Selection Needed For Judges On Wisconsin Supreme Court

The issues that surround some of those who sit on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, and how they were elected, has been a topic that I have thought a lot about.  Most Wisconsinites have been forced to think about these matters as well, given the last two rancorous and dreadfully expensive races for the court.  While I have long felt that public election to the Supreme Court was superior to other methods of placing citizens on the bench, in light of the recent problems that show no signs of ending, I have started to alter my views.  It is time to think about merit selection for the Supreme Court.  And I am glad that I am not alone in my point of view.

On this blog I have railed against the actions of Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler due to her ethical lapses as a circuit judge in Washington County.   I have grave concerns about the message her presence on the bench sends not only to the Badger State, but also around the nation.  Meanwhile I had strong words of opposition over Michael Gableman, as I view him as an empty vessel without the intellectual heft that is required for the very important work on the court.  In both cases, but for different reasons, these individuals are seriously flawed, and as a result the state judiciary suffers. 

The fact that each of these individuals had the right to place their name on the ballot, raise huge amounts of money from special interest sources, and manipulate the voters with never-ending TV commercials in no way means that once elected they have the necessary skills or ethics to well serve the public, or the letter of the law.  The manner in which they ran for the bench does not enhance the image of the court, or benefit our judicial system.  The current electoral flaws that allow a Ziegler or a Gableman to become a justice sends the wrong message about how importantly we should view our judicial system.  At a time when public approval of our government and public institutions are shrinking there should be ideas advanced that would reverse that sad downward trend.  Merit selection is one idea that should be considered to make our State Supreme Court better, and also to assure the citizenry that qualified jurists are at work.

There are different ways that merit selection can work.  But the process would start with a nonpartisan group that would recommend names for the court.  Then either the governor or legislature might make the selection.  After a set number of years the voters could then vote yes or no on retaining that person for another term.  What appeals to me so very much is the idea that the first step in the process would insure that only highly qualified and thoughtful names would be advanced.  The ones with low ethical standards that do not mesh with our ideals, or those without intelligence that reflects our needs would be weeded out. 

We can no longer pretend there is not a credibility problem with the court.  The electoral process is loaded with ways for special interests to almost insure that a candidate with an agenda is elected.  We all can recognize the reasons that ill-serves our state.  Since the general public has proved unable or unwilling to make better decisions for the judiciary, I think merit selection is an idea whose time has come.

Technorati Tags: WisconsinSupremeCourt, Wisconsin, MeritSelection, AnnetteZielger, MichaelGableman

Annette Ziegler, “Public Clamor”, And Justice in Wisconsin

I must admit to being taken aback last week by not only the conclusion from a three judge panel concerning the ethical and legal lapses of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler, but also the tone of those remarks.  Ziegler has long been in the news since her conflicts of interest surfaced during the race for the Supreme Court in the spring of 2007. 

The panel consisting of three Court of Appeals judges recommended only a reprimand is given to Ziegler for her many self-admitted inappropriate behaviors as a circuit judge in Washington County.  While on the bench Ziegler presided over among other cases, eleven West Bend Savings Bank cases at the same time her husband sat on the bank’s board of directors.  Not only was she involved with misconduct on the bench, but she also had conflicts of interests due to her stock holdings that she had not disclosed. 

In face of the facts about the tainted judge, the panel recommended only a reprimand is needed as a form of punishment by the six members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that will weigh in on this matter.

Let us be clear about this ‘punishment’.  Instead of a true response to a most serious violation of judicial ethics, the panel offered only an embarrassment that insults the whole legal system, and the citizens that the system is designed to serve.  The panel had an obligation to get the job concerning Ziegler completed correctly.  Not for any partisan reason, or to satisfy any personal vendetta.  They had a duty to get it right to preserve the high ideals and objective rendering of justice that citizens expect in Wisconsin.

Every person with any sense of the situation that Ziegler finds herself in, fully understands that there is a code of conduct for a judge that is clearly spelled out, as are the consequence’s for misconduct while on the bench.  For the panel to water down and dilute the matter ill serves the greater needs of justice in the state.

For the panel to recommend the Supreme Court disregard “public clamor” and accept the recommendation of a reprimand is a cold hard slap to the citizens who work hard, pay the taxes, play by the rules, and expect their governmental and judicial systems to work.  There has been a great deal of conversation in the general public about this matter.  Concerned voices have expressed themselves on editorial pages in newspapers, joined the debate on radio, and in the world of blogs.  I myself have written often about this matter and do not believe that my feelings, or those of my fellow citizens, are worthless to the debate about what the Ziegler matter does to our sense of justice in Wisconsin.

First Annette Ziegler told the electorate during the election that the matters concerning her ethical and legal issues were not important in the campaign.  Now we are told that her actions and lapses of judgment are things that she not need be held accountable for.  In addition the Supreme Court is being told to discount the voices of the citizenry that strongly object to this matter being whitewashed.

Perhaps it is time for every citizen in the state to seriously ask if the tail is not now wagging the dog.

If the severity for ethical lapses (and worse) is no more than a mere reprimand, I suggest our judicial system is in great need of repair.

Technorati Tags: AnnetteZiegler, WisconsinSupremeCourt, Madison, Wisconsin

Another Annette Ziegler Ethical Problem?

Jon Axelrod represents Annette Zielger in her legal problems pending with the Supreme Court, that stems from her days as a circuit judge.  But Axelrod also represents AccuWeb in a case to be heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court next week.  While I am not sure if Axelrod will present the case in court or not, I do think that Zielger needs to make sure all parties are aware of the situation.  Given that Zielger has a history of ethical lapses I think this is yet another issue we need to be aware of.

Technorati Tags: AnnetteZielger, WisconsinSupremeCourt, Madison, Wisconsin, AccuWeb, JohnAxelrod

Capital Times: “Ziegler Should Quit The Bench”

With lucid writing another state newspaper makes the only conclusion one can about the seriously flawed and unethical life of Annette Ziegler.

State judicial ethics rules require judges to disqualify themselves from participating in cases when a reasonable person would question their ability to be impartial. On Thursday, Ziegler participated in oral arguments on a tax case that is a top priority of WMC, her campaign’s chief benefactor.

As a national watchdog on judicial ethics issues, James Sample, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, has observed, “The argument could certainly be made that it would be reasonable to question her impartiality (in this case).” But we don’t have to take Sample’s word for it. Ziegler has effectively admitted the conflict.

Early in November, the justice disclosed in a letter to lawyers representing the parties involved in the case that WMC had been a key supporter of her campaign. But the letter from Ziegler, whose shamelessness has extended to openly lying to the voters of Wisconsin about the facts of her ethical abuses, also informed the lawyers that she intended to participate in deliberations regarding the tax case.

That combination of an admission of a conflict and a refusal to recuse is what disqualifies Ziegler from further service on the court. And if she does not recognize that fact, then the other justices must speak up to assert a basic standard of judicial responsibility.

Technorati Tags: AnnetteZiegler, WisconsinSupremeCourt, Wisconsin, Ethics, Conservatives