Following the recent Supreme Court election between Gableman-Butler, many individuals involved in the Wisconsin legal community have been calling for a change in the way jurists are selected in the state. Unfortunately, instead of advancing a somewhat reasonable alternative of a nomination process similar to the federal government, many have been advocating a judicial selection process wherein nominees are “selected” for nomination by a “nonpartisan commission.” (sorry for all the quotes, but I just can’t help pretending those are neutral terms)

A recent WSJ article highlighted the problems which exist in such systems. Missouri and Florida both use a system where nominees to fill vacant seats are presented to the governor. If the governor refuses to select any of the options, the nominees are simply sent back to the committee. However, it is the committee that then chooses the judge.

As the WSJ noted, “though the Missouri Plan is supposed to keep politics out of the process, it has instead transferred power from voters to state bar associations and legal groups that control the judicial commission. The result is a system that’s contentious and opaque — and has tipped the state courts steadily to the left.”

At the end of the day, “merit selection states have already proven you can’t get politics out of the court system. The real issue is who does the choosing — voters through elections or their elected representatives, or lawyers working to help their own.”

The WSJ nailed it. If Wisconsin were to support a “nominating committee” it would simply turn into a tool for the state bar to elevate jurists they believe to have the proper judicial outlook. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be the individual to make that decision. If a change must take place, I would then much rather have elected officials make such decisions. There must be accountability. A “nonpartisan committee” will be answerable to no Wisconsinite.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121944715202565133.html

-Jake