Litigation

WI Editorial Appeals for Merit Selection

By Peter Hardin

If Madison-area voters turned to the newspaper’s editorial page recently for advice in a Wisconsin judicial election, they may have gotten a surprise.

A Wisconsin State Journal editorial abstained from endorsing a candidate in an election for a seat on the 4th District Court of Appeals, saying the editorial board instead “endorses a better method of choosing judges–merit selection.”

As background for the editorial, it cited Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent remarks in support of ending judicial elections in the states (see Gavel Grab). The editorial then proceeded to tick off the following reasons for endorsing merit selection:

“Picking judges based on merit, by a nonpartisan committee in a transparent process, would:

• Reduce the role of money and politics in judicial selection.
• Avoid conflicts of interest that arise when judges are tied to campaign contributors who have interests in cases.
• Improve Wisconsin’s ability to ensure it gains the highest quality judges.
• Restore public trust in impartial justice.”

Meanwhile a column in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel by a retired surgeon, John Ridley, contended that electing justices to the state Supreme Court “is delivering individuals who come to the court with significantly flawed ethical bearings.”

The column urged consideration of merit selection for the state high court:

“Many ballot supporters admit that the election of justices is no longer serving the public well but defend the practice as democracy, which is sometimes messy. I would counter that what we have is minimum democracy and maximum mess, which promises a lesser-quality Supreme Court for Wisconsin.”

You can learn more about merit selection from Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 07, 2010 (boomark / email).