Wisconsin State Journal Is Wrong About the Supreme Court Election

For the second consecutive year, the Wisconsin State Journal refuses to make an endorsement in a spring Supreme Court race. Last year they refused to join fifteen of Wisconsin's major daily newspapers in endorsing Louis Butler as a Supreme Court justice.

Last week the newspaper refused to join the responsible newspapers who are endorsing the re-election of distinguished jurist Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

For Supreme Court: merit reform

In the April 7 election for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, the State Journal editorial board endorses no candidate.

Instead, the State Journal endorses a better method of choosing state Supreme Court justices -- merit selection.

The reason is simple. Madison's morning newspaper does not like the role of untraceable funds going into the judicial campaigns through 'issue committees.' I do not like that either.

The paper does not like any campaign money affecting judicial races. Neither do I. However, in balancing the value of voter participation in Supreme Court elections, I part with the newspaper and see no reason to rush to an appointive process.

There are a number of ways to improve the selection of justices. Perhaps pending legislation that would require disclosure of issue committee money is one solution. Other options include public financing of judicial campaigns as well as the appointment process.

To refuse to participate in the election or to endorse a candidate because one's preferred solution is not in play is not responsible. The Wisconsin State Journal made its point, but has failed its readers. 

Nowhere is it written that the Wisconsin State Journal cannot endorse and call for reform.

Comments

[Glenn Loos-Austin]

"To refuse to participate in the election or to endorse a candidate because one's preferred solution is not in play is not responsible."

Well said. I think it also puts the pressure on the wrong group. "I won't endorse you for election unless you change the process by which you are selected." is a kind of silly approach. They'd be better off refusing to endorse candidates in other spheres who might actually be capable of reforming the selection process.

[The Ghost of Bill Evjue]

Just another reason to not buy the State Urinal. It's not a real newspaper anyway.

It endorsed George Bush twice.

[Brian]

The WSJ is wrong about practically everything. Their arguments are immune to fact.

[xoff]

Is that the same newspaper that endorsed Henry Reynolds for mayor when he came out of mothballs?

And Richard Nixon?

And George Bush?

And Ronald Reagan?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, as the King of Siam would say.

If they want to stay out of it, fine with me.

[R.J.]

Maybe they're hiding the fact that they're against activist judges?

[B- WI]

They could endorse AND call for reform in one move: opposing Abrahamson, the incumbent justice.