 |
 |
 |
||
 |
|
|
||
|
||||
 |
|||||
|
2/2/2010 Supreme Court ruling means election reform, not merit selection, is needed By Andrea Kaminski The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com. The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case opens the floodgates for special interests to get involved in our elections. Vast spending on advertising from corporate treasuries will distort the issues and misrepresent candidates in the elections later this year. Some people suggest that the Citizens United ruling is one more reason to do away with election of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court justices and move to a “merit appointment” system of judicial selection. That is like throwing the baby away with the bathwater, when you consider that until 2007 most people would have said that our Supreme Court elections have worked very well since statehood in 1848. Rather than take the vote away from citizens, let’s work to improve the elections. The Supreme Court ruling, though devastating, left room for a number of reforms that would do so. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund supports the current system in Wisconsin, in which justices may be appointed by the governor to fill vacancies and subsequently stand for election on their own records. This is the way most of our justices join the Supreme Court. It makes the Court accessible to qualified individuals who might never be able to mount a statewide campaign, and then it makes them accountable to the people. The League of Women Voters of Dane County recently held a public forum at which Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson spoke in favor of maintaining election of justices, and Tom Basting, past president of the Wisconsin Bar Association, spoke in favor of merit selection. Each provided a well-organized and compelling case. The Chief Justice said that neither election nor merit selection is a corruption-proof system. She also pointed out that if Wisconsin did move to a merit selection system, it would require amending the state constitution – a process that would take at least three years, even if there is no opposition. And there would definitely be opposition. All the more reason to repair our elections. Contrary to what some people have said and written, the Citizens United decision does not rule out public financing of elections. Indeed, it makes campaign finance reform more needed than ever. Governor Doyle in December signed the Impartial Justice into law, providing public financing for Supreme Court elections. The law is being challenged by two lawsuits, which are without merit. Eight of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices affirmed that the Citizens United ruling upheld disclosure of election spending, including any done by corporations. A bill in the state Legislature to require such disclosure will have to be changed to be compliant with the new ruling, but it too is more important than ever. We should at least be able to know who is behind the ads that will bombard us in a few months. The clout of regular citizens has been drastically reduced by the Citizens United ruling, but that’s no reason to give up our right to elect our high court justices. -- Kaminski is executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund. |
|