Recent state Supreme Court races have turned 'elections into auctions,' panel says
The "unrelentingly nasty" campaigns of the past two Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, fueled by record-breaking spending by special interests groups and candidates, have created a "toxic landscape" and "turned elections into auctions."
Two state Supreme Court justices were among the panelists painting this bleak picture at a forum Tuesday night at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
The forum was timely, coming a day after Jefferson County Circuit Judge Randy Koschnick announced he would run against incumbent Supreme Court Justice Chief Shirley Abrahamson in a race that observers fear could produce another round of out-of-control spending and negative campaigning.
To address these issues, Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Patrick Crooks said they favor the public financing of elections, disclosure of contributors to special interest groups, public education on the role of the court and promotion of get-out-the-vote efforts.
"Only 19 percent (of registered voters) voted in the April Supreme Court election. Nineteen percent is something we all should be ashamed of," Crooks told an audience of about 80.
Crooks also promoted moving the nonpartisan judicial election to the fall when more people vote.
Mike McCabe, executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said the purportedly nonpartisan judicial campaigns are becoming increasingly political and run by political operatives. And he said the candidates become mere "bystanders" in the race as special interest groups outspend the candidates four-to-one. Special interest groups bought 90 percent of the television advertisements in April's Supreme Court election, McCabe noted.
McCabe favors campaign finance reform that makes the special interest groups play by the same fundraising limits and disclosure requirements as the candidates. Candidates will continue to shun public campaign financing until it provides realistic amounts, he said.
The Impartial Justice Bill, introduced during the last legislative session, would provide $2.8 million in public campaign funding. However, another source could be tapped, McCabe said.
"We could do what Arizona does and put a 10 percent surcharge on all civil fines and forfeitures that would raise $9 million annually," he said.
That wouldn't prevent special interest groups from airing misleading ads, but it wouldn't allow them to dominate the campaign to the point they do now, he said.
Walsh Bradley said the problem isn't a lack of good ideas on how to reform judicial elections, but a lack of political will to get them enacted.
Panelist Scott Milfred, opinion page editor for the Wisconsin State Journal, took up his paper's campaign for merit selection of judges as a way to get better candidates for the bench, protect the rights of unpopular causes and restore the public's confidence.
More states have merit selection than any other system, the federal judiciary is appointed, and 33 of the 50 most recently elected Wisconsin Supreme Court justices were initially appointed by a governor before they later ran for the office, Milfred said.
File photo
Justice Patrick Crooks: "Only 19 percent (of registered voters) voted in the April Supreme Court election. Nineteen percent is something we all should be ashamed of."
