View from around the state: Politics, money hurt state’s high court

Listen to this article

— From the Wisconsin State Journal

The problem with the Wisconsin Supreme Court isn’t the age of some members. Nor is it the process for picking a chief justice.

What ails the state’s high court is broken public trust — something two Republican proposals won’t fix.

The real solution is to appoint, rather than elect, high court justices in a way that insulates the selection from partisan politics.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Wisconsin appear ready to adopt that good-government reform. The two state parties would rather battle for partisan control of the high court in the same way they battle for the Legislature — with lots of money and pandering to special interests.

Until Wisconsin moves to an appointment system based on merit, the next best option is a single term of around 16 years. The State Bar has suggested such a change, which would continue judicial elections but protect justices from having to look over their shoulders before ruling on the law.

It’s important to remember that judges and lawmakers are supposed to play very different roles in our democracy. Judges are supposed to be nonpartisan referees who settle disputes over the law without regard for public influence. It’s in this way the rights of individuals are protected from the whims of the masses.

In sharp contrast, lawmakers are supposed to advocate for the views of the majority and fight for their constituents.

Wisconsin has confused these distinct roles, turning our best judges into the worst of politicians.

As the spring election for state Supreme Court between incumbent Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and challenger James Daley will show, nasty television ads will tarnish the reputations of both candidates, and the winner will be dogged by conflicts of interests, based on who paid big bucks to help the winner get elected.

It’s a huge problem of trust and integrity. Even those justices who insist they are not influenced by all the money and campaigning will have the strong appearance of being beholden to special interests.

Amid this mess of judicial elections, the Republican-run Legislature just finalized a spring referendum asking voters to change the state constitution. Rather than assigning a chief justice based on seniority, as has been the practice for more than a century, the referendum seeks to let the justices pick a court leader.

The measure makes some sense by basing leadership on the respect of peers, rather than longevity.

But making such a change immediately — without allowing current Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson to serve out the reminder of her term — exposes the proposal’s partisan motive.

Abrahamson is widely viewed as leaning left in many decisions, while the majority of the board appears or professes to favor the political right.

Abrahamson hasn’t stopped the conservatives who control the state’s highest court from upholding lots of Republican priorities, including Act 10, Gov. Scott Walker’s strict limits on public sector unions.

But that’s not good enough, apparently, for the Republicans who run the Legislature. The chief justice has the power to speed or slow decisions. So they wants to remove even that limited check.

Another GOP proposal would bar justices from serving on the court past the age of 75. Abrahamson is 81.

Rather than playing political games with the state’s highest court, the Legislature should encourage more judicial independence.