Two state senators announced earlier this month they plan to introduce a bill in that would effectively end the election of Supreme Court justices in Wisconsin. 

The proposed legislation would replace Supreme Court elections with merit-based appointments to be reviewed by a committee and referred to the governor for a final decision.

A joint statement issued by Sens. Timothy Cullen, D-Janesville, and Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, said switching to a merit-based system would curb the influence of private interests in Wisconsin’s justice system.

A transparent and open system could work to mitigate the influence of politics in the courts but is not a cure-all, said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center Democracy Program.

The senators’ announcement comes after the tight Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Cullen and Schultz proposed the idea shortly after Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley accused Prosser of being physically violent during a verbal altercation in her chambers.

“What you have in Wisconsin is extraordinary. The level of dysfunction in the court is off the charts,” Skaggs said. “When there’s accusations of assault, things have reached a breaking point.”

According to the Dane County Sheriff’s Office, the altercation happened June 13 – the day before the Supreme Court announced its decision regarding the bill eliminating collective bargaining rights for most Wisconsin public employees.

Both the Dane County Sheriff’s Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission are investigating the incident.

University of Wisconsin political science professor Charles Franklin said the public needs assurance the high court is competent.

Should accounts of the incident from the four justices present differ, Franklin said the impact on public perception would be detrimental.

But the altercation between Bradley and Prosser was not the reason for the senators publicizing their intentions, according to a statement from the senators. 

Discussions began last April when the senators called on Legislative Council to report how other states were handling supreme court positioning, the statement said.

The Legislative Council found 22 states had established nominating commissions through constitutional amendments, and another 10 did so through statutes or executive orders.

Cullen and Schulz said they hope to amend the constitution, meaning a joint resolution would have to pass through two consecutive legislature sessions.

At first glimpse, the proposal looks like a beacon of bipartisanship amidst ongoing political turmoil, but cosponsors have yet to board, and the senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald, opposes the plan, spokesperson Andrew Wellhouse said.

“Until we see more co-sponsors, we won’t know if this is truly bipartisan,” Franklin said.

Skaggs said given the state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, seeing widespread political agreement that a real problem exists should not surprise anyone.

“Courts tend to agree on most matters with a few exceptions. The case of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is almost the opposite, bitterly divided,” Skaggs said.