Meet the April election day. It’s important, but just like your middle school graduation or the birth of that sister you didn’t want, it lacks the enthusiasm and fanfare of last November’s main event. Instead of using the democratic process to vote in senators or a new president, today’s affair skews toward the local levels of government, with several well-contested City Council races on the docket. But just because the ballot has a Madison flavor doesn’t mean there aren’t any statewide contests worth checking off on, and the battle between incumbent Shirley Abrahamson and Randy Koschnick for one of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court seats could use the votes.
It’s been suggested that only one-in-five Wisconsin residents will end up voting on this year’s judicial election, and one has to wonder why the turnout is predicted to be so low. The obvious assumption is that the other 80 percent of the population consists of felons who are unable to vote in such elections, doomed to forever watch exit poll results in shame. But there is another theory out there, one that suggests apathy — along with a lack of knowledge regarding the candidates — and plays a significant role in keeping voter turnout down. In an effort to dispel this notion, and to get your election day juices flowing, here’s a crash course in today’s Supreme Court election.
Shirley Abrahamson: Known as the “A-Train,” she’s the sitting chief Supreme Court justice, and was first appointed to the court in 1976. While it would be more reasonable to call her one of the Supreme Court’s more liberal judges, we’ll just say she’s an “activist judge” and insinuate that by voting for her, you’re also voting for dudes making out and Dr. Kevorkian. She’s 75 years old and a Sagittarius.
Randy Koschnick: The underdog opponent, Koschnick has only been a judge since 1999, spending the 14 previous years wallowing away as a public defender. A self-described “judicial conservative,” we can only assume he wants to burn down Planned Parenthood buildings and put Terri Schiavo back on life support. His favorite TV shows include “The Wire” and “Two and a Half Men.”
Now to use this guide effectively, all you need to do is compare the candidates I just described to the nominees for last November’s presidential election, and base your decision on petty political alliances (Note: Neither candidate is black). Once you’ve made your choice, lock your door and wait for Wednesday, ardently avoiding schools, churches and whatever else could potentially be a polling place — and this is Wisconsin, so don’t think the bars are safe.
Truth is, if you’re reading this article to educate yourself on an election that’s being decided right now, you shouldn’t be voting. An election where only 15 to 20 percent of the eligible public votes is pathetic, but it’s not nearly as destructive as having 60 percent of the population turn out to vote for someone they’d never heard of. We don’t need to get more people to the polls, we need to get more intelligent people to them, and the low profiles of judicial candidates — coupled with absolutely moronic buzzwords like “activist” or “constitutionalist” — only lower the level of discourse. I doubt there’s ever been an effective judge who didn’t believe in the Constitution, and I have no idea what the opposite of activist would be: Inactivist? Corpse?
Unsurprisingly, most of you will find this article stupid, but for once, I’m hoping you find it that way for the right reasons. Not because it’s not funny, or because you’ve written better while huffing glue — although those are both valid. I hope you find it stupid because you’ve studied the issues, compared the candidates and are ready to cast an informed vote in today’s election. Remember, an uninformed vote is like a degree from Iowa: It counts, but it’s nothing to be proud of.
Sean Kittridge ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.
