Litigation

WI High Court Actions Stir Controversy

By Peter Hardin

Two actions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, adopting new recusal rules and deadlocking over an ethics complaint against a justice, have stirred up strong reaction.

In its Big Money Blog, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign criticized both decisions in a post headlined “High Court Sinks to New Low.” On the recusal rules, formally adopted this week by a bitterly divided court (see Gavel Grab), the group said the state Supreme Court had ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Caperton v. Massey. That decision found that large campaign expenditures could create an unacceptable potential for bias.

Wisconsin Democracy Campaign also criticized three justices who found an attack ad aired by Justice Michael Gableman in 2008 “distasteful” but also protected by the First Amendment. These justices said they did not believe Justice Gableman was guilty of misconduct, as laid out by an ethics complaint. Because the state Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3, the complaint was dropped (see Gavel Grab).

The group applauded a recent commentary about the Justice Gableman saga in ExpressMilwaukee.com, saying, “Columnist Joel McNally said it best: ‘This time a lowlife really did get off on a technicality.’” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is a partner of Justice at Stake.

The following views were expressed in other commentary:

• “[T]he three justices who voted not to sanction Gableman found a loophole. Gableman is free to lie again in campaigning,” wrote O. Ricardo Pimentel for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board in a blog.
• Justice Gableman “has brought shame and dishonor on himself and that will be his judicial legacy. It is unlikely that Gableman will achieve any distinction on the high court that will be surpass his despicable, yet legal, election tactic,” said an editorial in the Oshkosh Northwestern.
• “Gableman will remain undisciplined and continue to stain the idea of impartial justice that the court represents,” a Racine Journal Times editorial said. It urged that the governor nominate state Supreme Court and appeals court judges and that they be confirmed by the state Senate to 10-year terms. The editorial added:

“While not perfect, ending elections for higher judicial posts would prevent the scales of justice from being unbalanced by large sums of cash. Or outright lies.”

A commentary in the Madison Capital Times was headlined, “Plain Talk: Electing Judges Still Best Option.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 09, 2010 (boomark / email).