Electing Justices Good for Republic
Liberal elitists, who think they are better at picking judges than the voters are, were quick to point to the money injected into the race and negative advertising as justification for “merit selection “ of judges—a fancy name for patronage appointment.
Liberals say contentious and costly judicial election campaigns create disrespect for the judiciary and dupe voters. There is no “silver lining, “ they say. On the contrary, though, there are several.
First, the close election brought valuable attention to referendum issues on the ballot. The voters approved a constitutional amendment depriving Gov. Doyle of the so-called “Frankenstein “ veto he has used to drastically edit budget legislation passed by the Legislature. It was voted down by a margin of 71 percent to 29 percent.
Second, the Gableman-Butler contest was further evidence that Wisconsinites care about judicial rulings. With Butler making a liberal majority, the court garnered nationwide notoriety for decisions expanding business liability in legally unprecedented ways. This clearly played a role in the election.
Third, the money and advertising in the race were not entirely bad. The money trail provided clues for voters on which candidate to support in the nonpartisan race.
Business, law enforcement, and Republicans supported Gableman, while labor, teachers, and Democrats supported Butler.
I distrust people who seek to give the people LESS of a voice in the operations of their government.
Hat tip to Do the Right Thing.
I do love these columns, that of course, want to paint merit selection as solely the vice of these so-called “liberal elitists.” I will, of course, concede that liberals have used the Butler/Gableman outcome as an opportunity to seize upon a concept that, truthfully, is quite bipartisan and has been implemented by fully half of the states, red states and blue states alike.
Direct citizen participation in governance will always operate on some sort of a continuum, grounded on one end by a system in which nobody is elected, and grounded on the other end by a system in which every single government official and employee is elected. The governor and the Legislative mailroom staff both get paychecks from the people, after all, and the people in the mailroom make decisions on behalf of taxpayers as well. So the question is where in the middle does one responsibly set the bar?
I would never support election of justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. A state appellate court is no different. Voters simply don’t have the time or energy to devote to a sufficient understanding of a judge’s background or judicial philosophy.
Voters, as a whole, are basically dumb. Let’s not kid ourselves. 90% of Americans probably aren’t equipped to be involved in any kind of development or understanding of public policy or judicial philosophy. Candidates, of course, can’t say that, so instead they pander to voters in the broadest terms, using the 8-pack of Crayola So Big crayons to draw simple pictures that the electorate can actually comprehend at their third-grade level of political comprehension.
So instead of thoughtful debate in elections, both sides produce ham-handed crayon drawings about things like judicial activism and immigration and foreign policy and gay marriage that are designed as much to demagogue and oversimplify as they are to inform.
Voters, instead of assuming the responsibility of become more involved and informed in public matters, are lazy. They sit back on the couch and expect candidates to dumb down their messages so they don’t have to work hard to understand them. My criticism of the present system has more to do voters than candidates.
Just as we do with appellate judges on the federal level, I’m happy to let more knowledgeable people vet candidates and make selections, and allow our democratically-elected senators to represent us in the decision-making process. As much as I think they are often doing stupid things, the average legislator is still more intelligent and qualified to make these decisions than their average constituent.
Unlike citizen initiatives like term limits, no state that has adopted merit selection has ever gone on to repeal it, nor do I believe there’s any hue and cry in those states to change their present system. And ideally, whatever the outcome in Wisconsin, the discussion can at least be non-partisan and had in terms of what helps us to have the best, most qualified justices possible.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 19, 2008 at 1219 hrsSoooo.... the voters are too stupid to choose a justice, but smart enough to choose the guy who will choose the justice? Or should the guy who selects the justice also be appointed? How far removed from the process should the people be?
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2008 at 1226 hrsI really do find the whole concept of merit selection to be fascinating. For one, who gets to decide the definition of “merit?” Will it be people like you who deride “third rate” law schools and a person’s choice to practice law outside of Wisconsin’s great urban centers? Will brilliant young prospects be looked over for people who have managed to hold onto a judgeship for 30 years? Will things like judicial philosophy and past rulings be taken into account? In the most recent case, one might argue that Butler had more “merit” based on his tenure but the content of his rulings argued against his merit in some circles. Wouldn’t the judicial philosophy of the people making the decision come into play here?
One need only look to the appointment of our U.S. Supreme Court justices to see that the appointment does not remove politics from the selection. It merely moves the politics to the floor of the Senate instead of the populace. It’s a proxy war.
And why should we limit merit selection to justices? The President has his finger on “the button.” Should we entrust such an awesome responsibility to someone who was put into office by a bunch of slack-jawed dullards? Seems risky to me. The Congress is another place where we should evaluate this whole election thing. These people can make decisions - like nationalizing health care, going to war, fuel economy standards - that have a huge impact on our lives. Shouldn’t we choose them based on merit too?
In the end, I’d rather let the people decide who has merit or not. Yes, there are some stupid voters out there, but they have a right to choose their government too.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2008 at 1246 hrs"Soooo.... the voters are too stupid to choose a justice, but smart enough to choose the guy who will choose the justice?”
I think that this is generally true. It was obvious from this election that most people don’t have the foggiest idea what an appellate judge does. Most of the discussion i heard in the papers and on ads for both candiates was about criminal law and crap like that. It was really quite jaw-dropping. People have a slightly better idea of what a governor does. And a Governor should be a bright enough person to understand what a judge does. Appointing judges is [or would be] just one of his duties and it’s no different than any other. We donb’t have referenda on every issue either. We elect people whose job it is to understand the more complex details of these issues and act in our best interest. I think it’s dangerous to have every branch of government elected. I like seperation of powers and stuff. I would be cool with electing judges if a literacy test was required. (I’d like that for all elected positions though). Also, I’m not a liberal.
Posted by JIJAWM on April 19, 2008 at 1251 hrsMy only point was that the whole thing is a continuum. I appreciate your arguments and that perhaps you draw the line in a different place. But the fact is that you are likely still drawing a line too, a line that is no more or less arbitrary than mine.
By your argument, we should probably vote on who gets to work for legislators, since those people also exercise autonomous decision making when working with service agencies on legislation. Hell, in some offices, the legislator is barely there and the staff basically runs the whole show.
In many communities, the garbage man exercises discretion when deciding if you’ve properly prepared your yard waste for collection. That judgment effects a person’s life too. Perhaps we should elect garbage men.
I think your arguments are perfectly rational, as are mine. We simply draw the line in different places. That’s fine. But I could just as easily turn your question of “How far removed from the process should the people be?” into “just how involved in the process should the people be?” At some point, I presume we will both say “no, people shouldn’t vote on that.” And at that point, wherever it is for each of us, we’ve decided to trust in the concept of representative democracy.
As for your questions, I’m perfectly happy to do as many other states do - allow some kind of commission, whose members are appointed by the various branches of government, to interview and rank candidates. Have the governor choose someone off the list, and have the Senate confirm that individual. As for the qualifications to serve on the committee, I’d keep it simple and just require that they hold a law degree. I’d also require legislative appointments to come equally from the majority and minority parties.
Merit selection isn’t about depoliticizing the process. I don’t know who supports merit selection that will tell you it will. What it is about is keeping public officials whose fundamental duty is to be impartial from having to pander to voters and interest groups for their jobs, activities that by their very nature call into question their ability to maintain their impartiality. And for me, that’s the rationale for drawing the line where I do.
We don’t expect impartiality out of politicians, but we expect it out of judges. And frankly, I don’t trust Gableman to sit on a case where WMC files an amicus brief any more than I’d trust Butler to sit on a case where WEAC files a brief. Both are human, and both are compromised by a process that now requires the involvement of interest groups to be competitive. Either you get someone who is sympathetic to a group that helps them win, or someone who deliberately goes out of their way to be difficult on such a group so as to prove their independence. Either way, they’re not being impartial.
I’m happy to let slack-jawed dullards run for President, and I reluctantly tolerate the notion that tens of millions of slack-jawed dullards will drag themselves to the polls, and likely vote for the person who is better looking, or a better snake oil salesman, or isn’t black.
Again, my disappointment falls mostly on the American voter, who is dumber, less educated, and less involved than ever. And people can bitch and moan and say that’s because politicians are all corrupt and compromised and people are discouraged, when really, all that crap happens because people are too stupid to notice whom they’re actually electing.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 19, 2008 at 1340 hrsOwen, good post and comments. I had missed the editorial and thank you for bringing it before us.
One of the most ridiculus arguments that is being made is that there is some analogy that can be made between people that vote in judicial elections and ads ran during the campaigns. Those that believe this maybe would buy swamp land from you because there is no facts backing such falacious claims.
This whole thing is one of the most insulting things that I have ever seen in state politics during my life. If some people want to give up the right to vote because it’s to difficult for them to decide whom to vote for, they simply should keep out of it. Because it’s to difficult for them does not mean that it’s to difficult for others.
Wisconsin has been voting now for 160 years. To change it would be a big, big mistake.
Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 2018 hrsThough we are fond of saying we live in a “democracy,” in fact, we live in a democratic republic. We elect our representatives to do certain things for us.
There are different ways of doing things. For example, some cities elect mayors. Others have city managers appointed by the city council.
It’s always hard to talk about “taking away” a right to vote for an office. But the fact is, this recent election was very rare--the first time in many years that a sitting judge--who had been appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy--was unseated.
To me the problem with elected supreme court justices is that 10 years is a long commitment. I know I feel a little cheated when a justice I voted for steps down before her/his term is up--especially when the sitting governor (who will appoint the replacement) is not one I support.
But it is actually more common than not for a justice to step down early and for a replacement to be appointed. Thus, the election, more commonly than not, is more of a confirmation process. Let’s just go straight to appointment.
I don’t I understand what “merit selection” is. I don’t think I want an unelected board or commission to appoint justices. I think we should simply appoint supreme court and appellate justices for the state in the same manner we do nationally. It’s not perfect (and heaven knows I wish someone else had appointed the recent US Supreme Court justices), but overall I think it’s a good system.
My position has nothing to do with the recent election. It has nothing to do with not trusting the voters or ugly ads (they really were ugly though, weren’t they). I just think it makes more sense.
Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 2304 hrsThis is where the issue is bogus, especially the part about the “Frankenstein veto.” For GOP voters, this little tool was all peachy keen when Tommy used it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot…
Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 2314 hrsLet me rock your world Owen.
There is in nothing wrong to go after the voters who got sucked into all the nonsense about this election. especially the one’s in northern Wisconsin
These fools have voted against their own self interest. Gableman was hand selected and bought and paid for by the WMC and the Club for Growth, both of whom could give a flying crap about the welfare of these people who voted for this rumdum.
All WMC et al had to do was whip up scare ads and spend like drunken sailors to shove the message down voter’s throats. Crime, mind you, has scant to do with about 95% of what goes on in the State Supreme Court, but it sure was damn useful to make people think it was.
What will go before the Supreme Court will be a lot of laws that further the personal fortunes of the members of the WMC, but will literally crap all over these fine folks in our northern woods, and elsewhere in the Badger state.
Now of course you be shocked, just shocked that I would have the gaul to attack the intelligence of the Wisconsin voters. Those poor, Wisconsin voters who are being dumped on by us elitists. Of course you paint that one with a broad brush. A very broad brush.
Truth is, and let’s deal with truth for once, in a low turnout race these people who voted to cut their own throats represent a very small portion of the electorate. These are not the “voters of Wisconsin” which the right wing so gallantly defends, except when the matters come to these people’s economic interest.
You know that many voters are unengaged when it comes to the issues. And you know that ads get bought for a reason, otherwise why would these calculating businesspeople by advertising?
So please save the pieties. This election was a sham and the behavior of the WMC was shameful and beyond any defense. And for conservatives to act like they are so concerned about the “voters of Wisconsin” is a total crock.
After all, why start now?
Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 2333 hrsBy your logic, wouldn’t the fact that it was a low turnout election indicate that those who did vote were more likely the be the most informed portion of the electorate?
As for rocking my world… it comes as no shock to hear you admit that you’re a snob who thinks that anyone who doesn;t vote the way you think they should is either stupid or was duped. If anything, you proved my point.
Posted by Owen on April 19, 2008 at 2340 hrsIt’s about time our side starts calling you out on this sanctimonious BS.
These are not the “voters of Wisconsin.” These are people who voted against themselves.In fact you did too.
Posted by on April 20, 2008 at 0631 hrsWe have elected representatives that are both insulting and threatening the voters of this state with taking the right to vote away.
The nation has been informed that Wisconsin will de-throne a sitting justice (one that the people didn’t want in the first place) and now the liberals are trying to tell the nation that it’s because the voters of Wisconsin are a bunch of morons.
I think we should also tell the nation that Wisconsin voters will not sit by while they are insulted by elected representatives and get rid of them as well.
Posted by on April 20, 2008 at 0713 hrsSo the liberals insult the voters when a conservative supreme court justice is elected. And conservatives insult the voters when a school referendum is passed. And liberals insult the voters when a school referendum doesn’t pass. And on and on and on....
Posted by on April 20, 2008 at 1901 hrs“We get the government that we deserve and Wisconsinites have chosen another four years of corruption, expanded Tribal gambling, higher taxes, selling of state contracts, and an out of control regulatory and litigation climate. I’m pretty ashamed to be a Wisconsinite tonight. I thought that Wisconsinites were sincere about clean government and ethics. I was wrong.”
“I think that the fact that a majority of Wisconsinites were willing to ignore Doyle’s ethical issues speaks poorly about the character of too many Wisconsinites.”
Your words, Owen. You’re certainly entitled to them, but given that nobody rational goes to the polls looking to vote for someone who is corrupt, aren’t you pretty much saying (in a lot more words) that voters were too stupid to not vote for Jim Doyle? You’ve basically said that anyone who voted for Jim Doyle has no character and lacks the intelligence to see the world your way.
I think you might just be guilty of the sin you’re accusing Keith of. And certainly, as I’ve trolled through your old posts from November 2006, a whole host of your conservative readers are guilty of it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 20, 2008 at 2243 hrsAnd yet, I did not advocate taking away their right to vote for governor and going to a “merit selection” system. One can be disappointed in the results of an election and still support elections.
Posted by Owen on April 21, 2008 at 0624 hrsWhether to fill a particular office by election or by appointment should not be based on the results of a particular election, whichever way it goes.
But I don’t buy the argument that because we have always elected justices that we must continue to do so. If elections were always the best way, then we would have elections for many more offices and we would have more people perpetually running for election rather than doing their jobs.
We elect the politicians to set laws and overall policy, then the politicians appoint those who actually do the work. I would argue that if that we want the justices to do the work of interpreting the laws, then we shouldn’t choose them the same way we choose those who make the laws.
A 10-year appointed term provides a balance of accountability and insulation that I think would serve us well.
Again, however, I don’t really get the “merit selection” idea. It should be the elected politicians, not un-elected boards or commissions, that are held accountable for the appointment of justices. A committee to advise the governor is fine, but the appointment should be made by a elected official.
Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 0723 hrsFair enough. But I’ve never supported the election of judges. My position has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. I would agree that some others are probably seizing on the issue from a sour grapes standpoint.
You’d prefer more accountability in the judicial system, I’d prefer more impartiality. That’s fine. I respect your opinion. But at least I’m consistent enough to say that I think voters are pretty much always dumb. I don’t praise their intelligence when they agree with me and call them idiots when they don’t.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 21, 2008 at 0900 hrsIt appears to me that those that call voters dumb but are willing to give up the right to vote are the ones that are not to bright.
Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 0949 hrsRe 14:
Yet we conservatives didn’t start crying and whining that the Governor should be appointed rather than elected ‘cause our guy lost.
Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 1236 hrsAgain, I will reiterate that position comes down to the simple notion of impartiality. Judges are supposed to be impartial. Politicians, practically by definition, are supposed to be partisan. For me that’s a considerable difference, and warrants removing the judiciary from a process that is entirely partisan and creates judges, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, who are totally beholden to those who get them elected.
I can appreciate the opinions of those who wish to continue electing judges, as I’ve indicated before. I don’t agree with them at all, but I understand the rationale behind the argument. But please, don’t be so foolish as to pretend that there aren’t perfectly good reasons to do it the other way. Your oversimplified “arguments” (here’s looking at you, 18 and 19!) only make you look silly and unable to appreciate the difference between what politicians and judges do.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 21, 2008 at 1532 hrsRS - #20
Your arguements make you look like a little kid that says I don’t want to vote anymore because you’re to stupid. Grow up.
If I were to follow what you’re saying I would have to conclude that Wisconsin courts have been a total wreck for 160 years. They’ve never been fair, they’ve never been impartial and that is because everyone is dumber then you are.
It is the voters that have been electing people that have made this country what it is, including our judiciary.
I think you need to go home and change your diapers. Let the adults take care of elections.
Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 1628 hrsThe idea of appointing Wisconsin supreme court justices is debatable, though the sad part is our WMC is looking to buy the Supreme Court, a rather pathetic situation.. But…
The nation has been informed that Wisconsin will de-throne a sitting justice (one that the people didn’t want in the first place) and now the liberals are trying to tell the nation that it’s because the voters of Wisconsin are a bunch of morons.
1) This again is a case of CRCD—conservative reading comprehension deficiency. With 30% of the electorate voting the 15% that voted for Gabelman are not “Wisconsin voters,” but a tiny minority of Wisconsin voters.
2) What do you call people who vote against their self-interest? Intelligent?
Oh and BTW, let’s talk about real elites - the WMC. What do you call an organization whose members probably average $300,000 per year and whose numbers are at about 500—maybe?
For working people to buy this nonsense that liberals are “elitist” crosses the border into stupidity.
Posted by on April 21, 2008 at 1806 hrs
Ol' Army
