Litigation

WI Editorial: ?Explore Appointed Justices?

By Peter Hardin

A Wisconsin newspaper has deplored the specter of elected state Supreme Court justices who appear “as just another layer of partisan politicians, except with black robes.”  It is urging legislators to explore selecting justices by appointment.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial spoke out after reviewing the case of Justice Michael Gableman, who was accused in an ethics complaint of dishonesty in a 2008 campaign ad. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently deadlocked over the ethics complaint and whether to sanction Justice Gableman (see Gavel Grab). There is an ugly message in the outcome, the editorial said:

“[T]he 3-3 deadlock on whether to sanction Justice Michael Gableman for a campaign lie does send a message: Supreme Court justices are mere politicians, allowed to lie without consequence to secure plum jobs. And this prompts the question: Why should voters believe that the mere act of donning black robes will suddenly transform any justice who lies to get elected into the picture of legal impartiality and propriety?”

The editorial poses its own answer, that it is time to give serious consideration to changing the way justices are selected in Wisconsin:

“Appointing Supreme Court justices rather than electing them can more effectively distance these candidates from the corrupting influences of politicking, raising money and appearing to all the world as just another layer of partisan politicians, except with black robes.

“Gableman should have been sanctioned. That now appears to be water under the bridge. Future elections aren’t, though it would require a state constitutional amendment to transform the high court. The Legislature should explore appointed justices.”

To learn more about appointment/retention systems for selecting judges, see Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 06, 2010 (boomark / email).