While it's disappointing that JoAnne Kloppenburg's time atop the race for Wisconsin's Supreme Court justice was short-lived, it's not surprising. And no matter where you prop your feet on the political spectrum, it is extremely important that this election undergo a rigorous investigation in order to preserve government transparency and election legitimacy. It also holds, though, that no matter where you prop your feet on the political spectrum, it does not matter all that much who comes out the winner.
Supreme Court justices, unlike other elected officials, are not bound by constituent desires, but by the text in the state's constitution. That's certainly not to say we should expect Prosser and Kloppenburg to act identically on the bench—indeed, the very human tendency to interpret identical texts differently than other humans has led to more than a few centuries of bloodshed (mostly via religion). But even if we legitimize the blindingly partisan focus of the campaigns, the context of the race overshadows the importance of any one outcome.
Truth be told, Kloppenburg should not—could not have won. At the Feb. 15 primary (four days after Gov. Scott Walker announced his budget repair bill), Prosser collected 55 percent of the vote to Kloppenburg's 25 percent. Those two numbers add up to 80 percent, which means that in even the most unlikely scenario wherein Kloppenburg would win over every single voter who had selected one of the other two candidates, she would still be expected to finish a full 10 percent behind the incumbent in the April election. That deficit isn't just laughably huge; it is for all intents and purposes insurmountable.
Yet, there we were last Wednesday afternoon ready to christen JoAnne Kloppenburg with the black robe. And now here we are, one week later, skeptical of how a candidate who once held a 30-point primary lead could somehow muster one as large as two points in the general election.
But it's important we don't turn this skepticism over how any election official could be so incompetent into doubt as to who actually won. Likewise, it's important not to think a change in the courthouse is the same thing as a change in the Capitol.
While engulfed in party politics and entwined in the Capitol's current climate, it's all too easy for we the people to forget that Prosser is not Scott Walker. And while Prosser shares the same conservative reading of the Wisconsin Constitution, he should not be held responsible for any sweeping reforms that abolish individual rights. Besides, if Prosser was such a miserable justice, where was this groundswell of opposition against him three months ago?
Nay, the voters are the ones who are responsible. The 52.3 percent of people who voted for Walker played a bigger role than Prosser in causing our gripes, but even more than that were the large percent of Wisconsin voters who identify as Democrats but decided not to enter the polls at all last November. Politicians can only wreak as much havoc as we let them, and we let governors wreak a lot of havoc.
It is not only simpleton but also somewhat ignorant for the public to view the recent Supreme Court race as a referendum on Walker's conservative policies. If anything, they're just a weak ad hoc decision that maybe Wisconsin wasn't as sick as we thought it was last November. Maybe electing a steadfast conservative was a little more impulsive and turbulent than we were really prepared for, and maybe a part of the state is feeling a little seasick from the reactive sea change in political leadership.
But it's just as impulsive and shortsighted to think electing a new Supreme Court justice can right the waters and save our ship. Instead, the only thing worth worrying about is how the momentum behind that 30-point swing in fewer than two months can carry on until January.
Kyle Sparks is a senior majoring in psychology and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
