October 7, 2012
Some kind of justice
By Bill Kraus
An interesting compromise between those who support an elected judiciary and those who prefer an appointed one was casually and quietly trashed during the radical winter of 2011.
What was given the brush off was something called the Impartial Justice Act.
It was enacted at the request of all the sitting members of the Supreme Court who had witnessed or suffered the precipitous decline in the seriousness and civility of several recent Supreme Court campaigns.
What the act would have done was fully fund those campaigns if the participants accepted public money in exchange for not raising their own campaign warchests.
This act was intended to end the unseemly process of (mostly) lawyers paying for the campaigns of the judges they would appear before.
The justices got half of what they wanted when the Legislature enacted the law, but they didn’t get what they considered enough money to run respectable statewide campaigns as a part of the deal. They evidently considered this uncalled for penuriousness a fixable and a small, hopefully temporary, price to pay for the greater good of not being thought of as beholden to questionable fundraising practices.
Both candidates who contended in the 2011 spring election, the initial test of this new law, accepted the public money despite its inadequacy and pledged to forgo fundraising on their own.
Unfortunately, the timing of the first election with this law in effect couldn’t have been worse. What could have been a low cost but typical campaign got caught up in the post-Act 10 firestorm and became more a referendum on Act 10 and the governor who proposed it than a selection of a Supreme Court justice.
There were other problems with the Impartial Justice Law beyond the low appropriation which virtually excluded the use of TV advertising in their campaigns, which may not have been all that bad a side effect at that.
The more important problem was that the door to high spending parallel campaigns by special interest organizations was left wide open.
Fixes for both of these flaws never saw the light of day. The governor and the Legislature casually dumped the law and shut off even the meager funding that came with it.
This means that future judicial elections will continue down the road of the dialing-for-dollars, special-interest-driven, mudslinging personal attack modes so visible in the partisan campaigns now underway and which most of us say we hate.
It is improbable that the Impartial Justice Law will pull a Lazarus and rise from the grave it was dumped into in the spring of 2011. What faint hope of this happening would depend on the Legislature and the governor getting another letter signed by all the justices asking them to bring back impartial justice.
Fat chance.
The other route to the once traveled higher ground of selecting judges is what former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor came to town to promote a couple of years ago: an appointed judiciary.
I was among those who told her that we are culturally addicted to electing everybody to everything and we did have the Impartial Justice Law on the books to help keep those elections fair and clean.
With the law in the garbage the appointed system is beginning to look a lot better than it did two years ago.
I would hope we could go to an appointive system, if it is indeed possible, without the rejection election provision which caused so much trouble in Iowa and is spreading to other states, where the ad hominem strident special interests use that provision as a way to get judges who are biased in their favor or at least to get rid of judges who don’t do their bidding.
With that caveat, I think it is time to rescue our judiciary system from the kind of partisanship and pre-commitment that has put our legislators in trenches and the rest of us, including a working representative government, in a kind of no man’s land between the warring parties.
post a letter about this blog »
Right on Bill! The problem, of course, is that fixing the system is impossible as long as we have an administration and a majority in the legislature which has no respect for the judicial branch. When the Governor doesn't like a judicial decision and resorts to juvenile name calling, what chance do we have of changing the system so that we have truly independent judges on the Supreme Court?
-Thomas J. Basting Sr. | Madison WI | October 8, 2012
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004