The End Of Democracy In Wisconsin?
Jun 5th, 2008 | By Dan Pero | Category: Judicial Elections, State Battlegrounds, Wisconsin |
Print
Democracy is doomed in Wisconsin! The state’s “once proud reputation as a haven for and leader in honest, clean, accountable state government” is in tatters! Wisconsin politics is now a “cesspool!”
That grim verdict was delivered by Jay Heck, director of Common Cause in Wisconsin via an oped in The Capital Times. Why? Because a bill “strongly supported by Common Cause” was “murdered” by the legislature despite the fact that “Common Cause in Wisconsin called on the Legislature to act…”
Well! Maybe we all need to take a deep breath.
Common Cause’s ire was raised because the Wisconsin Legislature failed to approve a bill that would have created public financing of state Supreme Court races, among other “reforms.” But public financing is merely a backhanded way to keep the people at arms length from elected officials. It would stifle the voices of Wisconsin citizens and limit the power of voters to decide who sits on the most important court in the state – a court whose decisions affect the lives of millions of people.
It’s not uncommon for special interest groups to confuse their own political agendas with the public interest, but Wisconsin voters don’t need to be alarmed. When unelected, unaccountable special interest groups like Common Cause actually succeed in forcing elected legislators to jump through their hoops, then we’ll know democracy is in trouble.
Interestingly, the Heck oped was brought to our attention through a post by Monique Chase at the Brennan Center blog, who claims that “a little thing called democracy” is being threatened because Wisconsin citizens are allowed to contribute to the candidates of their choice. Funny hearing that from an organization which has dedicated itself to pushing for an end to one of our most fundamental rights in democracy – the right to vote. The Brennan Center, you see, is a “campaign partner” of Justice at Stake which is bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund speculator George Soros. Both groups promote the abolition of judicial elections in states across America.
There are a number of mischaracterizations in your blog piece.
The Brennan Center has NEVER taken a position for or against judicial elections. In fact, in an effort to safeguard parties appearing before either elected or appointed jurists, the Brennan Center supports public financing of campaigns for the bench, while calling for more transparency and accountability in the judicial nominating commissions process. It is LESS about the kind of judicial selection system states choose and MORE about ensuring that the fundamentals of democracy are upheld in those systems.
What’s more, the Brennan Center has led the fight for what both you and I agree is “a fundamental right in democracy - the right to vote.” The Brennan Center has done incredible work in improving ballot design and voter registration procedures, while working to reform laws that disenfranchise individuals with felony convictions from voting. To say the least, the Brennan Center is pushing for clean, fair elections that count EVERY ballot cast.
Before writing pieces like this, it would be better if you took the time to research just exactly what you are writing about. Had you done this, you might have generated more traffic on this blog.
Thank you for your comment on my June 5th post. You must truly be a dedicated reader to have gone back through five months of archives to bring this issue to my attention, and I appreciate it.
As you know, Justice at Stake has been engaged in a campaign to end democratic judicial elections in many states where citizens enjoy the constitutional right to vote for judges (see this item I recently wrote: http://americancourthouse.com/2008/11/03/whos-watching-the-watchdogs.html). You may not realize that the Brennan Center is proudly listed as a “campaign partner” on Justice at Stake’s website. Or that James Sample and Lauren Jones of the Brennan Center co-authored a 2006 report for Justice at Stake that included a “defense of merit selection” chapter. Perhaps you might suggest that Justice at Stake remove the Brennan Center from its list of “campaign partners” and notify the group that Mr. Sample and Ms. Jones no longer defend merit selection, so that others can avoid the mistake of concluding that the Brennan Center actually supports such a system so fundamentally at odds with our democratic principles.
One point about your comment puzzled me, though. If you and the Brennan Center agree that protecting the right to vote is so critical, why has the Brennan Center NEVER (your emphasis) taken a position for or against elections? How can the Brennan Center claim to have “led the fight” for what both you and I agree is a fundamental right of democracy, yet remain neutral when it comes to a judicial selection system that strips citizens of their right to vote and turns the job over to a tiny committee dominated by legal special interests?