Newspapers’ role
The watchdog role of newspapers has been reinforced by a proposal adopted by a sharply divided state Supreme Court.
On a 4-3 vote, the high court – which is under increasing charges of bias – said campaign contributions and independently run ad campaigns are not enough to force a judge off a case.
The new administrative rule was written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association and business-lobbying group Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC). The two groups are major monied players in the Wisconsin election process.
Rejected were competing proposals from the League of Women Voters and retired Supreme Court Justice William Bablitch. Their proposals wanted to have justices step aside if a lawyer or party to a case gave more than a certain amount. Neither Bablitch nor the League of Women Voters is a big donor to judicial campaigns.
Justice Michael Gableman, the newest member of the court, said the new rule “memorializes the First Amendment rights of the people to express their political views.” WMC spent heavily to help elect Gableman. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said the new rule doesn’t change the current practice. Each judge himself decides whether to withdraw from a case.
When a judge should withdraw has been in the public eye since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a judge could be forced off cases if a party involved spent large amounts of money to elect him.
That federal ruling seemed to bury the idea that judges aren’t political animals who remember their donors.
The Wisconsin decision for the status quo underscores the need for newspapers to fully report on who is donating to judicial campaigns. But it also requires reporting on cases involving the donors as issues come before the judges.
Informed public opinion is the ultimate check on an elected judiciary. Newspapers, not bloggers or onesided talk radio shows, are the best source of that information.
Some critics say the answer is to have state Supreme Court justices appointed by the governor rather than through elections. Currently, Wisconsin governors can appoint justices when resignation or death provides an opening. State Senate confirmation is not required. Elected Wisconsin high court justices serve 10-year terms.
Having total gubernatorial appointment would merely up the stakes in gubernatorial election. Governors would appoint those favorable to their campaign donors and special interests.
Nor is public financing an easy answer to judicial elections and the question of when to step aside. Special interest groups would merely run “independent” campaigns away from the candidates’ own regulated funds.
Newspapers are left with their watchdog role. The public? Journalists often thrive on tips from angry citizens who perceive real or imagined injustices.
