I applaud the State Journal 's vigorous support for replacing our increasingly dysfunctional judicial elective system with a procedure that selects judges on the basis of their merit, and retains them on the basis of their performance.

I was counsel to a governor 's blue ribbon citizens ' committee 30 years ago that examined Wisconsin 's judicial system and strongly recommended a merit selection plan for judges. The committee studied the problems with popular election of judges, even before special interest money began playing such a large role.

We found, as the State Journal has pointed out, that most Wisconsin judges are either initially appointed or run without opposition for office, and this corresponds closely to the experience in other states holding nonpartisan judicial elections.

Further, only a small percentage of eligible voters participate in judicial elections. And many of those who do vote have no familiarity with the qualifications of the candidates for whom they cast their ballots. Indeed, a New York survey at the time concluded that more than 75 percent of those who voted for a judicial candidate could not remember the name of that candidate, even immediately after the election.

The fact is that, although judicial elections in this state are supposed to be about the legal qualifications and judicial temperament of the respective candidates, increasingly candidates are being asked to reveal how they might rule on particular issues. Judges are forbidden from stating their views on issues that may come before them, so judicial contests are now being waged around such labels as "conservative, " "liberal, " "pro-business, " "pro-consumer " "soft on crime, " and the like.

The most recent pollution of our judicial elective system has resulted from escalating costs. In recent years, a statewide campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme Court costs a candidate millions of dollars.

To raise such astronomical sums, a candidate must attract the allegiance of wealthy individuals and special interests. To do so, she or he must demonstrate, publicly or privately, an inclination toward the contributor 's cause or philosophy. This leaves qualified impartial, independent, middle-of-the-road candidates -- exactly the kind who should hold judicial office -- without the means of getting elected.

Moreover, how can a judge ignore the fact that a major contributor to his or her campaign, even though not involved in the case in court, will be directly affected by the judge 's decision? This isn 't the type of justice system we should want.

Merit selection of judges is the only way to repair these problems. About half the states in the country use some form of merit selection, and though the procedures for initial appointment and retention vary substantially, all of them are preferable to the elective system that Wisconsin uses. Our current elective system is becoming destructive of judicial independence and public confidence in the courts and should be replaced.

Bartell lives in Middleton.