On February 17, a U.S. District Court in Wisconsin struck down three State Supreme Court rules: (1) a prohibition on a state judge being a member of a party; (2) a prohibition on a judge endorsing a candidate in a partisan election; (3) a prohibition on a judge personally asking anyone for a campaign contribution.
Wisconsin elects its state court judges with non-partisan elections. The decision emphasizes that the state is free to continue using this system. The case is Siefert v Alexander, 08-cv-126, w.d. The decision is 65 pages and can be read on the webpage of the James Madison Center, www.jamesmadison.org. Choose “Judicial accountability project” on the left-hand menu, and then choose “Siefert v Alexander”. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Hmm. Is this an offshoot of _Republican Party of Minnesota v. White_? IIRC, Justice O’Connor has since said she regrets her majority-building vote on that one.
And what do folks here think? Is it better to preserve the veneer of impartiality for judicial elections, or bring the partisanship that’s there out into the open, or drop elections altogether, or find some new balance?
(To help kick off the discussion, let me note that Michigan has one of the weirder mixes in this respect — at least for our Supreme Court. Other judgeship races are pretty strictly non-partisan . . . and so are the Supreme Court justiceships — on the ballot. They’re at the top of the non-partisan section of the ballot. But they’re nominated at state-party conventions[!?] . . .)
The Wisconsin decision is very persuasive, and says that judges probably often have partisan feelings in their heart, and maybe it’s better to bring them out in the open.