judgesonmerit.org

Wisconsin uses nonpartisan elections to select its judges. That means candidates cannot seek the backing of a political party or identify themselves as a member of a political party.  Unlike Pennsylvania, the ballots do not reflect a candidate’s political party.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, however, “partisans seeking to elect their chosen candidates to the seven-member court have found a loophole big enough to drive a campaign bus through, as recent Supreme Court races demonstrate.”  This loophole is campaign expenditures on behalf of the favored candidate.

In recent elections, political parties, from inside and outside the state, have been spending money to assist their favored candidates in Wisconsin.  As Charlie Hall from Justice at Stake explained,

“Even though it (Gableman-Butler race) was technically a nonpartisan race, there was nothing to distinguish Wisconsin from some of the nastiest partisan races in 2008. . . . Wisconsin now has essentially partisan elections with this (nonpartisan) fig leaf attached.”

Now, there is a lawsuit pending against the Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed by a judicial candidate who claims the prohibition against joining political parties and announcing one’s party violates the candidate’s constitutional rights of free speech and association.  This case follows a line of cases in which restrictions on candidate’s ability to talk about their opinions, engage in partisan activities and engage in certain fundraising activities have been challenged.

In essence, these cases can be summed up as holding that judicial elections should be just like other elections, without all the special rules and restrictions.  But judges are different from other public officials and they owe their loyalty not to special constituencies, supporters or funders, but only to the law.  Which really leads us back to the same question we always ask: why are we electing judges in the first place?