“The law is reason free from passion.”

This phrase was coined by Aristotle, one of mankind’s greatest thinkers, and popularized by the delightfully cheesy movie “Legally Blonde.” We probably don’t have to debate how he’d feel about such a platform.

In any case, this phrase represents a basic view of how the law and legal proceedings should be: not reflective of any ideological beliefs but rather working in the best, logical course of action for the general populace.

“Should” is the key word here.

If Aristotle was hanging around Wisconsin today to see the state’s Supreme Court elections, he’d probably go into conniptions.

In case you need a refresher, incumbent Justice David Prosser is facing Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. Prosser is seen as the conservative justice who served as a Republican in the state Legislature, while Kloppenburg boasts a liberal backing.

And to answer your question, yes, these races are supposed to be independent and impartial. But anyone looking at the Prosser/Kloppenburg race would believe our elections are partisan. Or rather, anyone looking at the third party ads supporting Kloppenburg would.

In particular, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a liberal-leaning grassroots interest group, ran one notable television ad against Prosser. This ad condemns Prosser for failing to prosecute a priest for the sexual assault of two young boys while Prosser served as Outgamie County District Attorney nearly three decades ago.

Naturally, Prosser was pretty ticked off about that and railed Kloppenburg during their “We the People” debate on Friday and asked her to condemn it. Kloppenburg skirted the issue and only said regardless of her feelings, third parties can run whatever ads they want to run.

I find political attack ads to be ridiculously irritating – they just make the benefiting candidate look sleazy, even when it’s not their campaign running it. Kloppenburg would have done better to clearly state she did not agree to run the ad, especially given the fact her campaign ran a radio ad against negative campaigning tactics in judicial campaigns.

Even one of the sexual assault victims condemned the GWC for using their case in the ad.

“I do not appreciate myself or my case being used for political advantage, especially in today’s climate of dirty politics,” Troy Merryfield told the Wisconsin State Journal, adding he supported Prosser’s decision to not prosecute the case due to the lack of strong evidence at that time.

This particular GWC ad reminded me of a similar example of dirty politicking during another recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Current Justice Mike Gableman defeated then-incumbent Justice Louis Butler in the 2008 election, and it may be due in large part to an attack ad run by Gableman’s campaign.

The ad alleged Butler, while working as a public defender, “found a loophole” that allowed a child molester to avoid conviction. Obviously no one wants a justice that helps child molesters, so Butler’s campaign suffered a fairly heavy blow and gave Gableman the necessary boost.

However, after Gableman won the election, the state’s behavior watchdog Judicial Commission filed an ethics complaint about the Gableman campaign’s use of the ad. The conduct panel eventually found the ad to be misleading and in poor taste, yet it was not technically untrue nor a punishable offense.

This basically means a candidate or third party can say something inflammatory and deliberately rearrange facts into a misleading tone, yet get away with it. Anybody else think this sounds just wrong?

Now, third party advertising tends to be a touchy note because of the First Amendment issues surrounding political speech. The Citizens United case showed that, for now, corporations’ political contributions and advertising cannot be limited under the First Amendment.

So what is a solution to the toxic atmosphere clinging to the state’s Supreme Court races? If we cannot control third party contributions, the best answer may be just changing how justices can get their spot on the court.

Other states employ such methods as having the governor make a selection and have the state Senate vote for that choice – like the federal government choosing the U.S. Supreme Court. Another method similar to this is the Missouri Plan, which has a nonpartisan commission narrow down candidates who are then recommended to the governor. If the governor does not make a selection in the allotted time period, the commission makes the appointment.

The first of those methods does allow for some bias in the judicial selection, so I lean more toward the Missouri Plan to ensure more integrity in the process.

Wisconsin has long been notorious for its judicial elections: the outrageous amounts of money candidates spend on campaigning and the vicious attack ads that play on the electorate’s emotions. So perhaps a better way is simply to get rid of the election process, which almost always boils down to an ideological bias, and instead have a more merit-based system of judicial selection.

After all, the highest court in our state should not give the impression of underhanded manipulation and dishonesty.

Alicia Yager ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and French.