Litigation

Gableman Case a ?Tipping Point? in Wisconsin?

By Peter Hardin

In the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s deadlocking over an ethics complaint against one of its own, another Wisconsin editorial board finds reason to advocate for merit selection of Wisconsin justices.

A Wisconsin State Journal editorial says the court’s 3-3 split over the complaint against Justice Michael Gableman was shaped by politics. It laments that “the increasingly partisan nature of Supreme Court elections” is blurring the line that once buffered the judicial branch from the partisanship of the other two branches.

Justice Gableman was accused of dishonesty in a racially-tinged campaign attack ad. After the high court deadlocked over the complaint, the state Judicial Commission dropped it (see Gavel Grab).The editorial said his case represented a “tipping point  because it laid bare what is happening to the court.”

The editorial warned of growing partisan political influence on the judiciary and asked the following questions:

“With a partisan court, can citizens be confident of a fair, impartial hearing? Or will their fate be pre-determined according to the court’s partisan majority?

“Shouldn’t a Supreme Court candidate’s legal skill and fairness be more important than ability to raise campaign money and win partisan support?

“Wisconsin should restore public trust in the Supreme Court by shifting to merit selection of justices.”

You can learn more about merit selection from the JAS issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 16, 2010 (boomark / email).