I was disappointed to see such a narrow-minded guest column in Wednesday's Badger Herald (Oliver Kiefer, Ziegler absurdly corrupt; vote Clifford). Unfortunately, the author put his own political interests above the needs of every single student on our campus. If there is one thing students can't afford, it is another judge willing to write his or her own opinions into the law.
Students must be able to rely on a steady interpretation of the law. Decisions made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as we attend classes at UW-Madison will affect us for the rest of our lives. When asked what she would rely on to form her judicial opinions, Annette Ziegler answered, "the Wisconsin Statutes." (Isthmus, 3/8/2007) What else should be used? Is there anything else that should be relevant to her consideration of the law? No, but it is a very important question, as her opponent cited Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.
This highlights a stark difference between the two candidates for the Supreme Court. Judge Ziegler has stated her decisions made on the bench will not be at "the whim of the day or my political or ideological preference. That gets checked at the door." (Sheboygan Press, 3/2/07) In the same article, Linda Clifford is quoted as saying her decisions will "reflect what society needs in any given context." One candidate will analyze current state law and precedent, and use those things, and only those things, to formulate her judicial opinions. That is what Annette Ziegler has done for a decade, and that is what we can surely rely on her to do as a Supreme Court Justice. We have another candidate who will allow other things, things we cannot control, to influence her opinion. From campaign donors to interest groups, we have no idea what Linda Clifford will allow to manipulate her decisions.
The fact is, with Annette Ziegler's unprecedented commitment to the law guiding her judicial work, nothing else matters. When a judge refuses to allow anything but the law to make any kind of impact, it doesn't matter if someone attempts to stain her record with dirty political attacks. She has made and kept a commitment to the law, excluding everything else.
That too is something I suppose we shouldn't expect Clifford to understand. As Kiefer speaks so highly of her, there's one small detail he seems to have excluded: Clifford has never served as a judge. Ever. Not a single bench has ever been graced by the woman who would like a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court. So while she impugns Annette Ziegler's impeccable record, she doesn't even have a record to speak of. She has no experience, no track record, no practice sitting on the bench. I find that rather disturbing–I would prefer that the men and women whose words become the law of the land have had the experience of make binding decisions based on facts of a case presented to them.
Finally, there is Ziegler's incredible network of support across the state. 132 circuit court judges have endorsed her in this race. 132 of her peers on the bench have decided, regardless of label, that she is clearly the qualified candidate. Additionally, law enforcement organizations, sheriffs and district attorneys – democrats and republicans alike — form an incredible array of people that have come together to support Judge Annette Ziegler. Beyond her vast judicial experience, she's done pro bono work in Milwaukee, served as an Assistant United States Attorney, and volunteered with the Boys and Girls Club.
Ziegler's list of experience and support could go on for pages. However, Annette Ziegler remains the sole qualified candidate because of her commitment to the law, and her incredible track record on the bench. Students should rally around the one judge they can trust, the one judge who will avoid legislating from the bench, the one judge who will decide cases in accordance with the law. That judge, Annette Ziegler, deserves your vote on April 3rd.
Sol Grosskopf ([email protected]) is a UW sophomore.
