Should the state use merit selection to choose its high court justices?

Voters, not elite group, must select justices

The Wisconsin State Journal continues to insist editorially that it has found the utopian solution for selecting Supreme Court justices. That would be through so-called "merit selection," rather than through open elections as is now the case.

With merit selection, justices would be chosen by a trial lawyer-dominated commission or legal group, instead of by voters. This would amount to a wholesale transfer of power from voters to the elite legal establishment.

Under your proposal, justices would be determined by an unelected commission and then appointed by the governor or some other authority. It sounds un-American.

If justices insist on acting politically, they should stand for election like other politicians, not be turned into an unelected, privileged class.

-- Fred Wagner, Clinton

Special interests stain judicial branch image

In some recent Wisconsin Supreme Court races, outside political interests massively outspent the candidates with funds from unidentified donors.

These partisan interests controlled the message with inflammatory and misleading ads. There appeared to be no concern for the image of the institution. Instead, there emerged a slash and burn type of politics, totally focused on buying a partisan seat on the court.

Courts depend on the trust and confidence of the people they serve. When millions of dollars are spent by outside interests to poison public opinion on candidates for the Supreme Court, the institution is severely damaged and its effectiveness compromised. Our democracy requires a strong third branch.

I have no doubt that merit selection would:

• Result in high quality candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court being recruited year after year.

• Tend to eliminate the appearance of unseemly decisional paybacks by justices to interests that funded their elections.

• Result in a higher public confidence level in the court.

• Elevate, over time, the level of jurisprudence in Wisconsin, from the top down.

Merit selection has worked for decades in states all across the nation. It can work here, too.

-- Judge Andrew Bissonnette, Dodge County Circuit Court

Merit selection open to corruption, too

There is no "threat to the checks and balances" fundamental to the judicial branch by direct election of justices. The only threat is the loss of hegemony of the political elites in Wisconsin because they cannot "game" a direct election to get the man or woman they want on the court.

Let's call a spade a spade: Merit selection is the worst kind of elitism. The selection of justices would be taken from citizens of Wisconsin and given to a board of political insiders, party hacks and well-heeled contributors. John or Joan Q. Cheesehead is never going to get a seat on the selection committee. To pretend otherwise is to engage in the most cynical of deceptions.

Moreover, the threat of political manipulation of the selection committee is high. What kind of "pay to play" are we going to see between the members of the selection committee, the politicians and special interests? Has the State Journal editorial board so quickly forgotten the likes of Chuck Chvala and Scott Jensen?

Reform is not required. Merit selection is the wrong choice.

-- Joseph T. Leone, Brooklyn

Get corrupting money out of all campaigns

Our Wisconsin Legislature has an opportunity to restore some trust in our state Supreme Court by granting the court's request to free it from pandering money from special interest groups.

Unfortunately, the court's request is buried in a proposed bill that whitewashes the other political corruption in our state government.

Special interest money controls our Wisconsin Legislatures and governors. We need to get the money out of our political campaigns. All it seems to buy is negativity and government corruption.

-- William P. Rowe, Madison

Find a solution that doesn't defy democracy

The "best" merit selection systems the State Journal supports fail in that they are not democratic.

Supreme courts in the U.S. are the farthest away from the democratic principle of accountability and checks and balances. The bottom line is that merit selection is still partisan as the nominee is ultimately appointed by a partisan governor.

Justices elected and often re-elected on the merits of their philosophies and prior decisions are more properly the product of the people, by the people and for the people. Appointed judges are, almost by their nature, elitist, not accountable and partisan.

Courts without checks and balances are undemocratic. The use of the referendum to balance the many poor decisions made by supreme courts support democratic principles. Judges for life or long appointments fail the democratic principle.

If one wants to support systems of government apart from the people, then one would prefer merit and appointed judges, which are not democratic. The solution to the problems with elected judges must be found elsewhere.

-- James Novak, Barneveld

Keep election, but add rules, limit funds

While it's true the U.S. president gets to choose U.S. Supreme Court justices, and even though the last few elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court have been low grade, the privilege of direct election has been granted to our citizens.

It would be a sad blow to democracy to take it away from them.

The citizens of Wisconsin are wise. The fault lies not with the voters, but with the election rules.

Candidates should not be allowed to buy a position. Each candidate should be given the same amount and should follow a strict set of rules. A primary election could reduce the list.

A plan of this nature might bring decency back to our elections, and TV might be the biggest loser.

-- Dale C. Loomans, Reedsburg

Trust state voters over elite 'experts'

I fail to see the merit in your continued advocacy for an abrogation of our right to vote for a state Supreme Court justice.

Voting is a duty we undertake to continue our democratic republic. If one is too lazy or uninterested to vote, they have an opportunity to change their behavior. I wish everyone would vote.

Your position is that a small, elite group of individuals has a greater font of knowledge from which to choose a competent jurist. I believe this process is used in a number of countries where the government knows what is good for you. Generally, this is called a dictatorship.

The system you are advocating is ripe for abuse. It is far easier to influence the decisions of a small number of individuals than it is the entire voting populace.

I applaud that you want to better the system, and I agree with you. How about starting with truth in advertising and its application to campaigning? How about no out-of-state funding for an elected state official?

I would rather live with the dubious results of a fair election than with the purported best selection by experts.

-- Michael Sloat, Reedsburg

Reform to limit 'big money' is coming

There is no doubt that the reputation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been tarnished by the seating of two recent justices. Their campaign methods and special interest campaign contributions were despicable.

The problem with the present method of selecting Supreme Court justices is that big-money special interest groups appear to purchase influence. How can there be equal justice under the law when these justices are beholden to special interests?

Between merit selection and state-wide elections, we must determine which is a better means of selection: a judge chosen for his or her politics, or one financed by special interest money. If we remove the special interest money from the campaign, the people could better choose.

Our system of electing Supreme Court justices worked well prior to the influence of special interest money. It was reported recently that the state Legislature is considering a bill to limit special interest money in judicial campaigns. Hope for reform of the judicial election process may be on the way.

-- Robert L. Bellman, Richland Center

'Other states do it' argument doesn't work

There you go again, quoting how many other states have gone to merit selection for judges. That's the same tactic you used for the smoking ban -- everyone else is doing it.

Why should the entire state be held hostage by the Madison liberals? If that was such a valid argument, Wisconsin would have had a permit system for concealed carry of weapons years ago, the same as 48 other states.

-- John Popanz, Madison