The polls had barely closed in Wisconsin 's judicial election -- in which the conservative beat the liberal for the second time in a row -- when liberals began calling the election a "tragedy " in a "broken " judicial system and vowed to fix it. But the system ain 't broke. Actually, the election was a stellar example of democracy in action.

The clamor for reform came after conservative Judge Michael Gableman defeated incumbent activist Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler in a race that attracted nationwide attention. The clamor will likely continue as a third conservative-liberal rematch is in the works for next year.

Gableman, a circuit court judge from northwestern Wisconsin, was a virtual unknown when he entered the race last year. Butler had been more visible, though this was a mixed blessing.

He had previous statewide exposure from his run for the state Supreme Court in 2000, but lost that race to conservative Diana Sykes by a margin of about 2 to 1. In 2004 Sykes was appointed to the federal bench, and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle picked Butler to replace her. That appointment shifted the court from 4-3 conservative to 4-3 liberal, so control of the court was at stake in this election. That 's why it was contentious.

Butler blamed his defeat on negative advertising, but this is obviously false, since Butler did much better this time than he did in 2000, when he got only about a third of the vote. He got 49 percent this time, with Gableman taking 51 percent.

Liberal elitists, who think they are better at picking judges than the voters are, were quick to point to the money injected into the race and negative advertising as justification for "merit selection " of judges -- a fancy name for patronage appointment.

Liberals say contentious and costly judicial election campaigns create disrespect for the judiciary and dupe voters. There is no "silver lining, " they say. On the contrary, though, there are several.

First, the close election brought valuable attention to referendum issues on the ballot. The voters approved a constitutional amendment depriving Gov. Doyle of the so-called "Frankenstein " veto he has used to drastically edit budget legislation passed by the Legislature. It was voted down by a margin of 71 percent to 29 percent.

Second, the Gableman-Butler contest was further evidence that Wisconsinites care about judicial rulings. With Butler making a liberal majority, the court garnered nationwide notoriety for decisions expanding business liability in legally unprecedented ways. This clearly played a role in the election.

Third, the money and advertising in the race were not entirely bad. The money trail provided clues for voters on which candidate to support in the nonpartisan race.

Business, law enforcement, and Republicans supported Gableman, while labor, teachers, and Democrats supported Butler.

It remains to be seen whether "reform " will come soon. The Democratic state Senate majority leader opposes it. "I was with Butler, " he said, "but just because my guy didn 't win doesn 't mean we should change the rules. " He 's right.

Martin, of Green Lake, is senior fellow for legal affairs for The Heartland Institute in Chicago.