Editorial: Restore public’s trust in Court
Wisconsin State Journal, July 20, 2008
This month the state Supreme Court decided a tax case that will result in refunds to Wisconsin businesses of up to nearly $300 million at the state's expense.
The link between Ziegler, a pro-business group and her pro-business decision caused the executive director of One Wisconsin Now, a liberal political advocate, to quip that WMC's investment in Ziegler yielded a quick return.
But the 4-3 ruling produced another result as well.
It further shook public trust in the court's ability to decide cases impartially.
The problem was not the decision itself, which considered vexing legal questions regarding which kinds of software are exempt from sales tax.
The problem was how Wisconsin selects the Supreme Court justices we rely on to judge such matters impartially.
Highly politicized elections and costly campaigns for Supreme Court seats have raised doubt about the justices' ability to remain independent from partisan influence.
That doubt looms large following the court's high-stakes tax decision.
Common Cause, a bipartisan government watchdog group, is just one of many voices asking: Did Wisconsin get the best, impartial justice it could find, or did well-financed interest groups get the most partial justice their money could buy?
Wisconsin should respond by adopting a reform called merit selection to better protect the public's interest in an independent court.
In the tax decision, two justices - one on each side of the decision - were the subjects of highly politicized elections in the past 18 months.
Each drew support from well-financed third parties, and each faced opponents also supported by well-financed third parties. Both campaigns were sullied by nasty advertising.
The decision's author was Annette Ziegler, elected last year after a campaign in which Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, a business group, spent $2 million to influence voters to support her. WMC then paid for a friend of the court brief in support of the pro-business position in the tax case.
The link between Ziegler, a pro-business group and her pro-business decision caused the executive director of One Wisconsin Now, a liberal political advocate, to quip that WMC's investment in Ziegler yielded a quick return.
Furthermore, among the three justices dissenting from the decision was Louis Butler, who will leave the court next month because he was defeated for re-election this spring.
Butler's opponent, Michael Gableman, was backed by WMC.
WMC's influence in Ziegler's election and Butler's defeat and the potential for that influence to affect their decisions prompted Common Cause, a watchdog organization, to argue that both justices should have recused themselves from the case.
Clearly, the seeds of mistrust have been planted.
The partisan influence in the past two Supreme Court elections, and the impact on the public's faith in impartial justice, are just a glimpse of what's in store for Wisconsin unless the state reforms the way it chooses justices.
It's time for merit selection.
What's merit selection?
Merit selection is not a cure-all for the influence of partisan politics on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But under good merit selection systems, justices are chosen by their qualifications, rather than by their ability to wage a successful political campaign.
Consequently, justices are accountable for their impartiality rather than accountable to the interests who helped elect them.
For an explanation of how Supreme Court justices are chosen under merit selection, go to: www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion.
