Litigation

WI Supreme Court Contest Low-Profile So Far

By Peter Hardin

An election contest for a vacancy on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a low profile so far. But it’s getting more attention as a primary approaches for a four-candidate field Feb. 15.

“It’s been one of the more invisible races,” when compared with recent state high court elections, Joe Heim, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, told The Appleton Post-Crescent. The two top vote-getters in the primary will compete in a general election April 5.

Three of the candidates applied for, and qualified for, public campaign financing under a new Wisconsin law. The campaigns thus far have shaped up in a manner that “doesn’t even remotely” resemble recent Supreme Court contests, which attracted big spending, said Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. The group is a partner of Justice at Stake.

The candidates are getting chances to describe their qualifications and goals in the news media. In response to questions from the Wisconsin State Journal, for example, the candidates took these varying approaches to characterizing the role that special interests have played in recent Supreme Court races:

JoAnne F. Kloppenburg: “I am not accepting any special interest money in this race. Candidates can, and should, send a clear message that as a judge they will be independent and impartial and that justice is not for sale. Third party ads have had a negative effect in many elections in Wisconsin.”

Justice David Prosser: “Wisconsin elects judges to assure accountability. I support judicial elections. Reasonable contribution limits promote impartiality. However, denying judicial candidates the ability to communicate effectively with the people is unconstitutional. Denying private citizens the right to influence elections by spending money to express their views is inconsistent with democratic theory.”

Marla J. Stephens: “Third party groups have routinely outspent candidates in Supreme Court races. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the freedom to speak as individuals and collectively in political campaigns.”

Joel Winnig: “In 2008, special interest groups financed the most disgraceful campaign in the history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. They decided they could buy a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court. In ways consistent with the Constitution, the role of money should be limited to restore independence and integrity to the Court.”

All of the candidates but Stephens have sought public financing of their campaigns (see Gavel Grab for background).

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 07, 2011 (boomark / email).