Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Crowded ballots mean higher turnout for State Bar elections

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2008//

Crowded ballots mean higher turnout for State Bar elections

By: dmc-admin//March 10, 2008//

Listen to this article

ImageWhat motivates members of the State Bar of Wisconsin to vote for their president?

Election statistics show three-way races typically generate significant interest among members. In fact, four of the top five turnouts during the last 20 years have involved three candidates.

Vote totals in 1992, 1994, 1997 and 2005 all exceeded 5,700 and at least 33 percent of bar members cast ballots in those elections.

This year’s race also features a trio of hopefuls, but beyond the theory that more choices will naturally equal more votes, several candidates from past elections pointed to prominent issues, popularity and pounding the pavement as factors prompting bar members to visit the polls.

Whether the 2008 race between nominees Thomas W. Bertz and Kenneth A. Knudson and petition candidate Douglas W. Kammer will generate similar interest remains to be seen.

“In my experience, voters will turn out when they think there is something at stake and people reach out to them,” said Susan R. Steingass, who won the 1997 election.

Spread the Word

That year, 6,975 votes — 43 percent of the total membership — were spread among three candidates, all nominated by the bar. That voter turnout was the highest in the past 20 years.

Steingass captured the president-elect post with 3,936 votes, which was more than the combined total received by her two opponents, Sherwood K. “Woody” Zink, 1,629, and John H. Lederer, 1,410.

Both Lederer and Steingass pointed to extensive travel throughout the state and the diversity of the candidates as reasons for the large turnout. Steingass was a former judge who became the second female president-elect and Zink was the first government lawyer to run.

“Steingass was obviously backed to the hills, Woody was able to take leave of absence from his work (as a government lawyer) and I had already kind of semi-retired,” said Lederer, who was an attorney at what is now DeWitt, Ross & Stevens, S.C., in Madison.

Lederer also suggested the ability of the candidates to effectively reach members around the state was a distinctive trait of the 1997 race.

“I don’t think bar members would really know candidates very well if they didn’t actually have the opportunity to meet them,” said Lederer. “You could ask around the firm you work at, but that’s not a very motivating factor to get out and vote.”

Word of Mouth

Word of mouth was enough to win in 1992, according to attorney Milo G. Flaten, who was a petition candidate from Madison running against two female attorneys from Milwaukee.

More than 42 percent of bar members voted in the election in which Pamela E. Barker became the first female president-elect with 2,091 votes, 13 ahead of Margadette M. Demet. Flaten finished third with around 1,679 votes.

A solo practitioner and without a significant hook to his campaign, Flaten indicated that he had difficulty competing against two big-firm attorneys from Milwaukee. Barker, who currently is counsel with Appleton Papers, Inc., was with Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., and Demet co-founded Demet & Demet, S.C.

“There was probably a big turnout from Milwaukee, because that is where half the lawyers were from,” said Flaten. “I don’t recall Pam as having raised any issues during the campaign, but she was from a good-size firm in Milwaukee.”

Talk a Good Game

Traditionally, a third candidate for president-elect petitions for his or her name to appear on the ballot for a specific reason. Championing for a radical or progressive change to the bar can promote more than a few members to cast their ballots.

In attorney Steven A. Levine’s case, he centered on a specific niche of the bar population during his campaign. He appealed to non-resident lawyers by promoting a comity concept and the abolition of the diploma privilege. He also chose to champion a hot topic by promoting a voluntary bar.

“When I decided to be a candidate, I planned out the election and how many votes I needed to win and where they would come from,” said Levine. “I did a lot of emailing to different segments of the bar and specifically non-resident lawyers with issues I thought would appeal to them.”

Levine saw non-resident lawyers, which comprised almost a quarter of the 17,800 bar members at the time, as an “untapped resource” for votes.

Whether the non-resident voting population propelled him to victory is debatable, since Levine was also a Madison candidate running in an out-state year. Nevertheless, Levine did become the first candidate by petition to win in an election which garnered more than 5,900 votes.

Wausau attorney Dean R. Dietrich trailed Levine by 200 votes and La Crosse lawyer G. Jeffrey George by more than 1,000.

“I was actually a little surprised the overall total wasn’t higher because during the campaign, people called and said, ‘Usually I throw away election materials, but this year I’m going to vote,’” said Levine.

Steingass agreed that an interesting third candidate can generate interest among bar member, but it does not necessarily translate to victory.

Lederer championed for changes in the treatment of solo and small practitioners, but did not consider that to be a “hot-button” issue at the time.

“I thought, and still think that legal services are too expensive for the average person,” said Lederer. “I was looking to improve the efficiency of the practice of law.”

Exception to the Trend

The only two-candidate race to land in the top five was the 1998 Milwaukee race between Leonard L. Loeb and James D. Friedman. More than 6,200 votes were cast and Loeb edged Friedman by fewer than 200 votes.

There was little animosity between the candidates, but the election came on the heels of the heavy turnout in 1997 and Steingass noted an internal effort during her term to promote participation in bar activities.

“There was a big push to increase the level of enthusiasm and get more people involved,” said Steingass, who also noted the new State Bar building was being developed at the time.

Heading into the election, Freidman and Loeb already had the benefits of more than 25 years in practice, and both were at prominent Milwaukee firms. Loeb, who passed away in 2003, created Loeb & Herman, S.C., in Milwaukee and Friedman had been with the Milwaukee office of Quarles & Brady, LLP, since 1981.

In lieu of controversy, statewide familiarity was a likely factor in the high turnout, according to Freidman.

“Leonard was extremely well-known and well-liked and he was a family law lawyer and that section is very active and involved and very supportive of each other,” said Friedman.

“I’m sure they turned out quite a few.”

The lone “issue” to arise during the campaign came when Loeb distributed materials which listed state Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson as a supporter.

&ldquo
;She called him and said, whoa Leonard, you can’t do that,” said Freidman. “It turned out the mailing had been misprinted and they were resent listing Cedarburg attorney Sherman S. Abrahamson as a supporter.”

Both candidates ultimately assumed leadership roles, as Friedman became chairman of the Board of Governors during Loeb’s tenure as president.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests