The past few months have brought out the bad side of Wisconsin politics with most, if not all, of the ugliness stemming from Gov. Scott Walker's controversial budget repair bill. While I think Walker's reforms will guide Wisconsin toward a more stable fiscal future, the manner in which the bill passed and the events following its implementation have dragged Wisconsin further into the dirty ditch of partisan politics.
I cringe when I read about Rep. Gordon Hintz's, D–Oshkosh, outburst where he said he wanted to ""kill"" a fellow assemblyperson. It was just as disappointing to watch the Wisconsin Republican Party submit an open records request against UW-Madison history professor William Cronon. From what I know, Wisconsin is better than this.
This deteriorating political environment has been highlighted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice David Prosser and former district attorney JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Like most races, there is bound to be blatant partisanship and disgusting campaign ads. After all, Prosser and Kloppenburg are running for one of the most important positions in state government, but the palpable bias and negativity surrounding these campaigns have furthered my conviction that judges should not be chosen through an electoral process.
To be fair, most of the events negatively coding the election were not openly encouraged by the candidates, but rather by zealous supporters. However, neither Prosser nor Kloppenburg have made any real attempts to clean up their races.
This is evidenced through what is perhaps the most disgusting aspect of the race: negative attack ads run by various political organizations. Bashing an opponent is nothing new in politics, but criticizing candidates on their level of partisanship takes away from the seriousness of the election. These commercials have distracted from the real experiences and philosophies of the candidates.
I do not think Walker is the best governor. His power needs to be fairly checked and balanced. My objection comes from the belief that picking a judge because of one piece of legislation and one governor flies in the face of good decision making, especially when picking a supposedly impartial member of government. Doing so is just as bad as picking Prosser because he is a ""good complement"" to the Walker administration.
A judicial election will lead to partisanship, despite the fact that candidates are technically independent. So it does not come as a surprise that people are using the controversy over the budget repair bill to promote a judge they hope will support or overturn that specific piece of legislation.
It is this natural tendency for elections to take on a partisan focus that furthers my conviction that general elections are not appropriate for the selection of Wisconsin's Supreme Court justices. No matter how many times judges say they are impartial, people will still vote for a judge they feel aligns with their political opinions, regardless of their true judicial worth.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect way to solve this problem, but a merit-based selection process, complete with non-partisan experts providing a list of possibilities and a governor appointment, will lead to a better selection of the highest judges in Wisconsin.
Critics say there is no way this group of ""experts"" will come without bias. I tend to agree, but having people who study or have participated in the judicial process will make a more informed decision than the approximately 30 percent of people who will actually vote in an election.
Today, there is an election and I hope everyone who is eligible to vote in Wisconsin will do so. It is important that every voter use their voice responsibly and vote for who they think will serve the entire 10-year term best.
Matt Beaty is a sophomore majoring in math and computer science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
