Kumbaya in Wisconsin?
July 14, 2011
The Northwestern newspaper in Oshkosh, WI wants Wisconsin’s seven Supreme Court Justices to “make a visible, earnest effort to repair some of the damage they have done to the [Court’s] reputation.” How?
“A good place to start would be a unanimous public apology from the seven jurists with a collective acknowledgement that their partisanship has transcended the inherent philosophical differences they bring to the bench.”
Here at American Courthouse, we’re all for civility in the courts and in judicial elections as well. And I suppose getting Wisconsin’s Supremes together for a round of Kumbaya is preferable to the “solution” typically bandied about by Wisconsin’s legal elites and their media supporters – namely ending citizen participation in judicial selection by letting a commission of lawyers pick judges instead of the people.
Yet Winnebago County district attorney Christian Gossett was closer to the truth when he was quoted in the same Northwestern editorial saying that “if the judiciary is viewed as a rough equivalent of the legislature, they risk undermining themselves.” And why are courts across the country viewed as rough equivalents of legislatures? Not because judges are elected or are too partisan, but because too often they take it upon themselves to act like legislators. If judges really want to stop “undermining themselves” they don’t need to apologize – they need to return to their proper role of interpreting the law, rather than making law.
The Blagojevich Plan for Wisconsin
July 5, 2011
A pair of Wisconsin state senators has introduced legislation that would allow a small committee controlled by legal elites and special interests to select judges in closed door meetings, rather than allow citizens to make the decision in open democratic elections. American Courthouse readers will instantly recognize this as “merit” selection – a name that reflects the conceit that ordinary voters are incapable of evaluating judicial candidates on the basis of merit. But Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who opposes the scheme, has coined a better expression for this system of picking judges: the Blagojevich Plan. As Fitzgerald put it:
“Isn’t this what Rod Blagojevich went to prison for? Playing kingmaker….Open and free elections are always the best option.”
Nice analogy! It neatly captures the rigged, insider’s game that “merit” selection has become. Even diehard proponents of “merit” selection like Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center for Justice (recipient of over $2.2 million in Soros $$ over the past decade or so) recognize the weaknesses of this system. Admitting it’s no “silver bullet” and isn’t “immune” from politics, Skaggs says “merit” selection should be structured in such a way that the process isn’t dominated by any particular group. The problem is, special interest control is baked into the system and lawyers groups inevitably end up taking over the commissions.
The mantra that “merit” selection panels should not be controlled by lawyers has become a new talking point for charter members of the Soros campaign, like Skaggs and the Brennan Center. But, if Skaggs is actually sincere – if he really wants a cross section of society making important decisions like who serves us on the bench, why not give the job to the most representative group of all: Wisconsin’s more than 3.4 million registered voters?
Another Lame Excuse for “Merit” Selection
June 29, 2011
The Wisconsin State Journal is up in arms over an alleged altercation between state Supreme Court Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and David Prosser. Justice Bradley accuses Justice Prosser to putting “his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold” while Justice Prosser accuses Justice Bradley of charging toward him. Lord knows how this he said/she said will sort itself out, but the Journal already has an explanation: It’s all because of democracy! – specifically democratic judicial elections!
The blowup allegedly occurred over a dispute between Bradley and Prosser over a 4-3 high court ruling affirming Governor Scott Walker’s controversial move to reform the public employee unions that are bankrupting the state. Such a disagreement would have never happened under “merit” selection, the Journal assures us. Why? Because “a citizen [correction: lawyer] panel that’s insulated from politics would carefully draft a list of experienced, independent and impartial judges …” – you know, the kind of judges who won’t physically attack each other.
Come to think of it, maybe abandoning democracy for “merit” selection isn’t such a bad idea after all. Why not have a panel of experts pick legislators as well? Maybe legislators picked by “merit” rather than by politics wouldn’t abandon their seats and flee the state for six weeks because they were about to lose a vote.
As former Michigan Chief Justice Clifford Taylor has pointed out, what’s really at stake here [not in the altercation, but in the 4-3 vote] is a deep, divisive dispute over the role judges are supposed to play in society. Some believe judges should only interpret the law, while others believe judges should apply their ideological preferences to secure outcome they deem “fair.” “Merit” selection promises to paper over this divide by rigging the system to select primarily liberal judges. But this is a debate that must ultimately decided by the people – and the best way to do so is through open, transparent, accountable elections.
Finally…Kloppenburg Concedes
May 31, 2011
In a press conference today in Madison, WI, JoAnne Kloppenburg conceded the state supreme court election to Justice David Prosser.
After losing by 7,316 Kloppenburg demanded a statewide recount, even though no prior recount in the state had changed the final outcome by more than 500 votes. Needless to say, Kloppenburg failed to change that history: the recount netted her just 310 additional votes.
Million Dollar Crybaby
May 3, 2011
The recount continues in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court contest between Justice David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. After the smoke cleared on the April election, Prosser had carried the day with a close, but sure, 7,300 vote margin over Kloppenburg.
Rather than accept defeat, Kloppenburg pressed ahead, demanding a full, statewide recount. This, despite the fact that no other recount in Wisconsin history had overcome a margin of more than 500 votes.
At first, Kloppenburg’s demand appeared to be merely ungracious and unnecessary. Now, several days into the recount, what was unnecessary has become a total embarrassment. And a costly one, at that.
As of last Thursday, with just over one-quarter of the state’s votes recounted, Kloppenburg had gained a measly 111 votes. The cost to Wisconsin taxpayers for these 111 votes? $462,000 according to this handy Kloppenburg-o-meter supplied by the Legal Insurrection blog.
Legal Insurrection reports today that over half the state’s wards have now been recounted and Kloppenburg’s gains have shot up…by 37 votes…for a total gain of 148.
Despite the failure of a $1.7 million smear campaign against Prosser, Kloppenburg piled on with a needless recount that’s costing cash-strapped Wisconsin taxpayers $77,000/day.
Did you hear that? It’s the sound of millions of Wisconsin taxpayers slapping their foreheads.
“Recount Unnecessary” in Wisconsin
April 25, 2011
Given the unlikelihood of overturning Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser’s 7,300+ vote victory margin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel concludes a recount is “unnecessary.” As a recent editorial put it:
“Earlier, the GAB [Government Accountability Board] said a statewide recount in the Supreme Court race might cost as much as $1 million. Given that the state is already scrambling in its current budget to make ends meet and that the next budget won’t be any prettier, this is an expense the state can ill afford.”
Of course, challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg has every right to ask for a recount. But given that the largest margin overcome by a recount in Wisconsin is about 500 votes, what purpose is served by asking taxpayers to pony up $1 million, other than placating the liberal special interest groups that financed the smear campaign against Prosser?
Recount in Wisconsin
April 21, 2011
Wisconsin Supreme Court challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg, currently trailing Justice David Prosser by 7,316 votes, is asking for a recount, even though as Daniel Foster points out over at NRO’s The Corner, the largest margin ever overturned in a Wisconsin recount is fewer than 500 votes. The recount will cost taxpayers as much as $500,000 in Milwaukee County alone and could cost upwards of $1 million statewide according to the MacIver Institute.
Elsewhere, the AP reports the uber-liberal Greater Wisconsin Committee spent $1.7 million as part of its smear campaign against Justice Prosser. Fortunately, groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce stepped up to match the influx of cash and set the record straight.
Wisconsin Wake-Up Call
April 18, 2011
Good piece by John Fund in today’s Wall Street Journal on the snafu in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, where 14,000 votes were mistakenly excluded from the initial count. After the ballots were discovered, the race went from a razor-thin 200-vote margin for challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg to a clear 7,000-vote victory for incumbent David Prosser. Fund makes the case that avoidable errors such as this undermine confidence in the competence and honesty of our elections. It also provides fodder for the “merit” selection cabal in their $45 million campaign to radically change our judiciary and limit citizen participation in judicial selection.
In Wisconsin: Common Sense from Citizens…Hysteria from Elites
April 15, 2011
If you ever needed a reason to restore your faith in the wisdom and good judgment of ordinary citizens, take a look at Wisconsin. In the run-up to Wisconsin’s fiercely fought Supreme Court race, voters calmly evaluated the merits of the two candidates, ferreting out false charges and discounting malicious attack ads run by special interest groups.
And the elites? They became unhinged. Read more
Bombshell in Wisconsin
April 8, 2011
After trailing by a razor-thin 204 votes yesterday, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser vaulted to a 7,300+ vote lead after Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus discovered that she failed to report one city’s 14,315 votes. Ramona Kitzinger – a Democrat serving on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers – appeared at the press conference with Nickolaus and backed up her account:
“We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did. Those numbers jibed up, and we’re satisfied they’re correct.” [As a Democrat] I’m not going to stand here and tell you something that’s not true.”
Even so, challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg and Wisconsin Democrats immediately cried foul, noting that Nickolaus worked in the state Assembly Republican caucus when Prosser served as Assembly speaker and suggested they may call for an independent investigation. Liberal special interest groups, who spent millions to put Kloppenburg on the Court, were outraged, calling for Nickolaus’ computers to be “seized” and examined to see if “a crime could have occurred.”
Earlier, when it appeared Prosser might lose, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel counseled both sides to “act with grace and try to avoid making Wisconsin the Florida of 2011.” Good luck with that advice if Prosser ends up winning as now appears likely.