Supreme Court races in Wisconsin have become a depressing thing. And at no time was it easier to spot such an abject lack of inspiration in an election than in Wisconsin’s most recent race for … the state Supreme Court. Many have pointed towards Judge Gableman’s nefarious connections with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, while others (most notably the WMC itself) pointed to Louis Butler’s supposed use of “loopholes” to set criminals free during his time as an attorney. In many places, this is believed to be a prerequisite for competence, but during the race it suited the WMC to turn Butler into a Hun via their egregious television ads.
However, the lack of honesty and transparency isn’t a result of the candidates, or even the organizations that support them. The current malaise is attributable to the very concept of races for the Supreme Court. It belies the image of the judicial system that is somewhat feebly ingrained in the American political consciousness: solemn, frock-coated men high above the partisan squabbles that define other political offices, engaged in matters that have some minimum of intellectual rigor. To set Supreme Court candidates in opposition to one another in a public election, relying on a population that has at best a passing interest in the nuances of our legal system — myself included — is absurd and dangerous, and not only because it enables the proliferation of organizations with no concern whatsoever for judicial integrity. It also twists the candidates themselves into partisan hacks.
The current struggle to salvage the reputation of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is divided among those who favor campaign finance reform, and those such as Wisconsin State Journal Editorial Page Editor Scott Milfred, who in a recent panel pushed for a complete abolition of the selection of Supreme Court judges via electoral politics. Instead, Milfred advocated for a panel to choose the candidates.
Both positions display an admirable inclination toward integrity, and if Supreme Court positions were not a matter of technical understanding of the law, campaign finance reform would seem an adequate method for repairing the system. However, Obama-esque charisma is entirely irrelevant in a position that requires an astounding degree of legal nuance, and frankly, the electorate is not fit to judge that nuance. Certain positions are simply best left to the experts. The average nostalgic-for-Jerry Falwell troglodyte can hardly be said to have an adequate grasp of our judicial roots, and he or she should be given no place in the selection of our highest court. Such rampant irresponsibility is comparable to a national election for the head of FEMA. Not that it mattered, but still.
Milfred’s proposal doesn’t expose some deep-seated lack of faith in the average American, but rather a principled acceptance of the citizenry’s inability to judge the qualifications of every individual appointed to public office. And the use of a panel to select the judges carries with it the unique honor of being far superior to the national system, in which candidates are chosen by the president — who has an even greater inclination to hackery than anybody.
Additionally, campaign finance reform, while honorable, has done little to discourage the inherent tendency of politicians to disparage one another. More rigid laws in the most recent election did nothing to prevent both presidential campaigns from savaging the most trivial aspects of their opponent’s choice of dog-sitter (and comrades). For any reform of any consequence to rescue the tragedy of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, those carrying out the reforms must accept that the greatest obstacle to their efforts is a tyranny of the majority.
Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in economics.
