Opponents of state judicial elections can often accomplish the trick of sounding high-minded while opposing democracy.  They have a point of sorts—if all the noise and heat of a political campaign strikes you as beneath the dignity of the American people.  To the rest of us, it looks like the raucous political dialogue of a still-free people.

The election between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler (who previously lost his bid to get on the high court by a landslide and had to be appointed by the state’s Democratic governor) and Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman (a respected former state prosecutor), is turning out to be one of the most spirited judicial races in recent memory.  Charges are made.  Counter-charges are made.  And it gets worse: The candidates’ ads say bad things about one another!

Reminds me of the old line from Casablanca… “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

In response to the outrage—the outrage!—of criticizing the record of a sitting judge, a self-described “nonpartisan” watchdog group called the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee (WJCIC) is pretending to perform the solemn duty of calling Judge Gableman to task.

Fortunately, a Wall Street Journal piece on the race revealed that the “watchdog” is more of a trial lawyer lapdog.  Formed in December, it is chaired by the president of the Wisconsin Bar Association.  Of the committee’s nine members, eight are Democrats, many with close ties to the governor.  

Not surprisingly, the WJCIC homepage features a “Helpful Link” to Justice at Stake, the George Soros-backed organization that’s attempting to replace judicial elections across the country with “judicial selection committees” comprised of legal elites, typically trial lawyers.

In the meantime, the election moves forward.  A justice’s record will be scrutinized by the voters before he can enjoy a 10-year-term.  The people of Wisconsin actually get to hear another candidate debate him.  The entire state knows about the election and voters are engaged. 

The real scandal is not an election.  It is those who would give a justice a decade on the high court with nothing but a nod and a wink from the trial bar.