According to a survey conducted by C-SPAN in 2017, only 43 percent of U.S. voters can name one of the nine justices that sit on the United States Supreme Court. In the same way the Supreme Court can seem mysterious, state judicial races can seem removed and irrelevant to everyday life. And yet, Tuesday’s State Supreme Court election saw high-profile endorsements from the former Vice President of the United States and state senators in addition to interest groups.
If so little is known about the highest court in the land, is the hype regarding Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court race between Michael Screnock and Rebecca Dallet a good thing?
Even though voter turnout is historically low for spring elections, the Supreme Court election brought a renewed sense of enthusiasm for Election Day to Wisconsin. Many seem to think that the race, which resulted in a victory for Dallet, could be another predictor of the much-anticipated 2018 midterm elections. However, this type of extrapolation couldn’t be further than the goal of any judicial election.
Courage, integrity, impartiality: these are the qualities that a good judge possesses. Judges are supposed to be a beacon of neutrality. But is a non-partisan race in a post-2016, hyper-partisan atmosphere even possible? It would appear not.
Perhaps in the right wing’s pocket at the wrong time, Screnock saw massive backlash for his endorsement by the National Rifle Association following widespread marches against gun violence across the in several Wisconsin cities and across the country. Rebecca Dallet on the other hand, was in attendance at the March For Our Lives in Milwaukee. Also along partisan lines, Dallet was endorsed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
After the Associated Press declared Dallet the winner just after 9 p.m. on Tuesday, several news sources touted her victory as another sign of an approaching Democratic “blue wave." Judicial races are meant to be non-partisan, but it is also wrong to ask voters not to consider previous rulings made by candidates when casting their vote. Unfortunately, the average voter is not a constitutional scholar, and can usually only consider the outcome of landmark cases rather than how the justice in question arrived at their conclusion.
Ultimately, high stakes judicial races come with a catch-22. Bringing ideology, special interests, or future cases into elections can improve turnout by giving voters something to be passionate about though it is bad judicial etiquette. Every election from the school board to the State Supreme Court determines the future of our state and our country, and it is an unfortunate fact that it is almost impossible to win any race without outside endorsements or campaign contributions.
Izzy is a freshman majoring in political science and education policy. What are your thoughts on the election? Send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
