On April 7th of this year, the state of Wisconsin will have a general election to select candidates for a host of different offices at the state and local levels. These elections, given the time they occur, are often forgotten, but feature offices that should not be (i.e. mayor of the city of Madison). One of those offices is that of justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In this specific election, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (incumbent) is running against James P. Daley, a Rock County Circuit Court judge. Normally, I would malign at the fact that this was yet another election that no one was paying attention to, but this is different. If only for the fact that judicial elections are inherently idiotic.
We are lucky in this country to have the opportunity to elect our representatives. This makes sense because they are representing us. Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are not representing us, but rather the law itself. We could get into a debate over the concept of indirect representation, but since we’re not all political science professors, let’s just say a judge’s only allegiance should be to the law of the land.
This leads into one of my concerns with this aberration of the Wisconsin political system. Judges are supposed to be unbiased. Check that, they need to be unbiased. Our legal system hinges on that fact. The process of electing these officials puts that in extreme jeopardy. In order for candidates to contend in these statewide elections, they need to raise a substantial amount of money, which entails courting donors much like you would expect from a candidate for the Legislature. Justice Bradley, the aforementioned incumbent, has already raised more than $375,000 with just under two months left in her campaign. This may seem insignificant given current trends in campaign finance, but in real terms these are large sums of money being paid out to individuals whose job puts a premium on neutrality. Can we really expect every one of these judges to remain completely unbiased if they are hearing a case that contains issues of utmost importance to some of their largest donors? As much as I would hope for that to be true, the cynic in me knows it cannot be in every case.
Even beyond these obvious ethical issues, can we really trust the general population to select competent legal professionals? Probably not. One could rebut by saying that this is no worse than allowing citizens to elect legislators, but that is completely different. Legislators can put their goals and skills in terms that everyone can easily understand. What are judges even supposed to say in a campaign? What are their goals? Their position is difficult to understand. In some instances, so difficult only they are able to understand it. It makes no sense to put the citizenry, a vast majority of which have never picked up anything resembling a legal text, in charge of selecting some of our most technically difficult governmental positions. Just in case anyone in the body politic is offended by this, I am including myself with all of you. I wouldn’t trust me with picking a judge.
Ultimately, the process of judicial elections is politicizing a position that has become politicized enough without them. The state Supreme Court is the one body in this state that we should always be able to trust to be impartial. Electing these officials works against that on multiple levels. At the end of the day, if stopping these elections would do nothing else, maybe they would prevent a few people from being choked.
Max is a junior majoring in political science. Do you agree with his take? Should judges be elected? Does this process sacrifice neutrality on the bench? Would you propose a different method of appointment? Can ordinary citizens successfully select judges? Has the court become too politicized? We want to know what you think. Please send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com
