The way to a better state Supreme Court

What makes a good judge? Ethics, intelligence, integrity, experience, education (past and ongoing), communication skills, character, personal and civic responsibility — the list is long.

What makes a good candidate for judge? The list should be similar, but in a world where money has so thoroughly infiltrated elections, it isn’t. Candidates must: appeal to partisan special interest groups, connect to wealthy donors or be wealthy themselves, pander to partisan groups and causes or simply to refuse to recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors.

Wisconsin is one of 13 states that holds (supposedly) non-partisan elections for state Supreme Court. And while a functioning democracy needs a trustworthy and independent judiciary, the process increasingly is influenced by spending. Regardless of ideological bent, money muddies the waters.

On April 3, our state will go to the polls for the spring election, where two candidates are competing for an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Sauk County Circuit Judge Michael Screnock and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dallet. One of them will replace Justice Michael Gableman, who is part of the court’s 5-2 conservative majority and not seeking re-election.

It should strike people as odd that we can head into a nonpartisan election with a very good idea of how voters of different ideological stripes will cast their ballots. Gov. Scott Walker appointee Screnock, the NRA-endorsed, Republican Party-financed candidate, will likely garner support from conservatives. Rebecca Dallet, the pro-environment, pro-LGBTQ rights, and generally Democratic-backed candidate, will likely rally liberal support. The ever-shrinking moderate or swing voter base will probably decide the outcome.

But beyond this election, we need to take a longer view of how we got to the point where it’s not only normal, but necessary, for backers of judicial candidates to spend millions of dollars.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “In the 2015-16 cycle, Wisconsin Supreme Court elections saw $5.9 million in spending, including $2.5 million from outside groups. Nearly all — 91% — of that outside spending was from dark money groups that conceal their donors from the public.”

Money from both sides of the ideological divide has led to difficulty. Justice Annette Zeigler was reprimanded by her fellow justices for a series of conflicts. And now Dallet, though she’s spoken out in favor of recusals, has expressed uncertainty over whether she would need to do so if faced with cases involving a group that recently took out ads in support of her candidacy.

There’s an easy answer: public financing of elections, or a meritbased and bipartisan selection process.

We should strive to create diverse bodies that nurture robust and non-partisan debate and decision making. To do that, money needs to be removed from the process. That would help ensure that the people who decide some of our most pressing legal questions are great judges, not just politically malleable candidates.

Emily Mills is a freelance writer who lives in Madison. Twitter: @millbot