Wisconsin Commission Appointed Judicial Method Proposal

From Judgepedia

The Wisconsin Commission Appointed Judicial Method proposal is a proposed future action in the judicial branch in Wisconsin in which would change how supreme court, court of appeals and circuit court judges are elected.

Contents 1 Events Fueling Merit Selection Proposal 2 Merit Selection Proposals 3 Support of Commission Appointed Political Selection in Wisconsin 4 Opposition of Commission Appointed Political Selection in Wisconsin 5 Notes

Events Fueling Merit Selection Proposal

In 1997, 2007, and 2008 three supreme court elections ended in contreversory.

1997-Jon Wilcox v. Walt Kelley

In 1997, Jon Wilcox won election handily over ACLU attorney Walt Kelley. However after the election, Walt Kelley filed a complaint to the former Wisconsin State Elections Board, now the Wisconsin Government Accountablity Board that alleged that Wilcox's campaign illegally coordinated last-minute get-out-the-vote efforts with the supposedly independent Wisconsin Citizens for Voter Participation. State law bans any coordination orcooperation between independent groups like the coalition and a candidate orcandidate's campaign organization.

As part of the largest collective settlement of a case involving state campaign finance law violations, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jon Wilcox has agreed to personally pay a $10,000 fine on behalf of his 1997 re-election campaign.

Under the settlement, Wilcox's campaign manager Mark Block also agreed to pay a $15,000 fine and promised not to work as a consultant or volunteer on any campaign until 2004.

The coalition's co-founder, former Assembly Republican staffer Brent Pickens, agreed to pay a $35,000 fine and promised not to work on anyc ampaigns for the next five years.

The settlement opened the door to suggestions by some that Wilcox should resign or be removed from the high court.

One Elections Board member said Wilcox should, at the very least, sit out future cases involving the former Elections Board^[1].

2007-Washington County Circuit Court Judge Annette Ziegler v. Attorney Linda Clifford

In 2007, when Justice Jon Wilcox retired Washington County Circuit Court Judge Annette Ziegler ran for election against Madison immigration attorney Linda Clifford.

The case drew contreverosry on two fronts. First, there were charges made by the Clifford Campaign that Ziegler illegally presided over 56 cases inlvolving West Bend Savings Bank as her husband Todd Ziegler served on the bank's Board of Directors^[2]. Also, there was also a huge amount of money spent on advertising by third party groups including Wisconsin Manufactuers and Commerce. Business groups concerned about how recent rulings have affected the state's economic climate saw electing Ziegler as a way to preserve the court's current makeup at the time. Their game plan worked later the next year in the 2008 Supreme Court Election.

The high-stakes nature of the Ziegler-Clifford race helped the candidates raise a record-breaking $1.7 million by mid-March. And third parties threw unheard-of sums into TV ads, mailings and automated phone calls. The race saw harsh ads from all sides^[3].

Ziegler won the race on a wide 58 to 42 percent margin^[4]. After the election the Wisconsin Judicial Commission heard complaints about Ziegler's involvement in cases including West Bend Savings Bank. In May of 2008, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission publicly reprimanded Ziegler. While calling the misconduct "serious and significant," the high court in a 60-page opinion nonetheless opted for the most lenient discipline available. The court could have imposed a suspension or expulsion from the bench, although both the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel had recommended a reprimand^[5]. Groups including the Wisconsin Democracy Council, Common Cause, and One Wisconsin Now crticized the commissions ruling as too leinent^[6].

2008-Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler v. Burnett County Circuit Court Judge Michael Gableman

This case was billed as one of the most important Supreme Court elections in the history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Michael Gableman a circuit court judge from Burnett County took on incumbent justice Louis Butler who was facing re-election after Butler was appointed by Governor Jim Doyle in 2004. This race lived up to its billing as more than $4.8 million by outside special interest groups that secretly raised and spent most of that money on negative ads about the candidates which was a record for a Statewide election in Wisconsin^[7]. The money was spent by the Greater Wisconsin Committie and One Wisconsin Now representing the Butler camp on attacks on Gableman, and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and the Wisconsin Club for Growth spent on ads attacking Louis Butler^[8]. The race was a close, down to the wire election in which saw Michael Gableman defeat Louis Butler 51 to 48 percent ^[9]. After the election, there was a decrease of membership in WMC because some former WMC members did not like the way the pro-business lobby conducted business during the 2008 Supreme Court Election and it resulted in Madison based Epic Systems issuing a press release in June of 2008 saying that they will not do business with any vendor that is a member of WMC^[10]. Also, One Wisconsin Now filed a complaint to the Wisconsin Office of Laywer Regulation as they claimed that when Mike Gableman was Ashland County District Attorney that he used his office to coordinate phone calls for a fundraiser involving former Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum^[11].

Merit Selection Proposals

In April of 2008, after the election State Representative Fredrick Kessler of Milwaukee proposed a constitutional method altering the selection process by having the Governor appoint Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges^[12].

Merit selection was recommended for Wisconsin in 1973 by a 40-member committee appointed by then-Gov. Patrick Lucey, a Democrat. That committee included business executives, university professors, union leaders, lawyers and more. The proposal was stopped as in Wisconsin any change in a constitutional amendment must be approved for two consecutive legislative sessions before heading on a statewide referendum ballot^[13].

Support of Commission Appointed Political Selection in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin State Journal in the past two supreme court elections has supported a commission appointed political method for selecting Supreme court and Court of Appeals Judges in Wisconsin claiming the uniqueness of the judicial branch of government^[14].

The Madison based newspaper's proposal called for a statewide commission based on geographical representation of laywers and citizens like in other states that have commission based political appointed selection^[15]. Also a new statewide commission could replace the Wisconsin Judicial Commission as a proposed judicial selection commission for Wisconsin could handle hearing complaints and adminstering discipline on those who serve in the judicial system. Also, the Madison based Wisconsin Democracy Council fully backs the idea of commission based political appointed selection.

Opposition of Commission Appointed Political Selection in Wisconsin

There has been wide criticisim among citizens and those who serve in the legal community in the State of Wisconsin. Marquette Law School Professor Rick Eisenberg is very critical of a commission selection proposal in the State of Wisconsin calling it a form of allowing an "imperial" and "agonostic" judiciary^[16].

Other criticisim comes from problems in Tennessee and Kansas with its judicial selection commissions as Tennesee's could be no more due to questions it violates the Constitution of Tennessee and Kansas over the makeup of its Supreme Court Nominating Commission after Kansas Governor Kathleeen Seibulus was criticized in her role of allowing campiagn contribiutions in exchange for appointments on the Kansas Judicial Nominating Commission^[17].

Notes