isconsin's hotly contested Supreme Court election is nearing a conclusion, as county officials wrap up a review of the ballots. The April 5 vote between Republican David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg took on national significance, as the outcome will determine whether conservatives or liberals hold the majority when the court rules on Gov. Scott Walker's (R-Wis.) bid to restrict the rights of labor unions. But the race's partisan nature — and the $3.5 million spent by outside groups — has some wondering if judicial elections are poisoning our courts with politics. Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges. Should they reconsider?
Justice is being skewed by political bias: "Something disturbing is happening in American courts," says The Charlotte Observer in an editorial. Judicial nominees in Wisconsin, Iowa, and elsewhere are being targeted by "political partisans and religious pressure groups." That's wrong. We shouldn't pick judges based on their beliefs on abortion or religion or politics — what matters is that they know the law and apply it impartially.
"A recipe for an even more biased judiciary"
Justices should be chosen by gubernatorial appointment: The "big-money political mud fest" in Wisconsin proves that the current system is broken, says Wisconsin's Journal-Sentinel in an editorial. It would be better to let governors appoint judges — but not "out of the blue" with "purely partisan or ideological motivations." Instead, a nonpartisan commission should nominate a pool of qualified candidates from which the governor could choose.
"Appoint the justices"
No, we just need to better educate the public: Face it, says James Wigderson at the MacIver Institute, "democracy is necessarily messy." And allowing a commission to decide which candidates are suitable to vote for would only make the system less accountable. "Just who watches the watchmen?" It would be far better to "work to convince the public of the criteria that should be used in selecting a Supreme Court justice," than to do away with judicial elections entirely.
"We should not minimize public input on judicial selection"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Why I'm a pro-life liberal
- If a nuclear bomb exploded in downtown Washington, what should you do?
- 10 things you need to know today: April 16, 2014
- 31 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Can these 4 couples really afford their dream houses?
- How to be more satisfied with your life, according to science
- He said he was leaving. She ignored him.
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- The contentious policy at the heart of Cliven Bundy's armed standoff with the government
- There's a number of reasons the grammar of this headline could infuriate you
Subscribe to the Week