The peril of judicial elections was underscored earlier this year with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling critical of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice who failed to recuse himself from a case involving a company whose CEO spent more than $3 million to get the judge elected.
While a majority of the high court looked askance at the justice's behavior, it didn't offer clear rules on when a campaign donation becomes a matter of impropriety. If $3 million is bad, what about $500,000? What's enough to indicate bias or at least the appearance of bias?
In Wisconsin, the state's highest court has been under similar scrutiny as special-interest groups have used their financial muscle in recent years to put more judges favorable to their cause on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Attack ads financed by business interests raised particular concern in a hard-fought race last year.
But in America's Dairyland, they don't take such an assault on the independence of their judiciary so lightly. Earlier this month, lawmakers approved the state's first public financing of judicial elections.
The bill, which is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle, creates a system much like the one frequently proposed for Maryland's state legislative races. Candidates for the high court could receive up to $100,000 and $300,000 from the state for primary and general elections by first collecting 1,000 small contributions. Those who qualify can receive much more if their opponents opt out of the system (and spend more than $100,000 or $300,000).
The program is financed by a voluntary $3 check-off on individual state income tax returns - or from the state's general fund if that fails to collect enough money. Wisconsin is the third state in the nation to adopt some form of public financing for judicial elections.
Admittedly, the law is far from perfect. It does not, for instance, have a mechanism to compensate for so-called "issue ads" run by third parties in the campaign.
But at least its supporters recognize, and have attempted to counter, a serious problem with judicial elections: the opportunity to purchase a favorable ruling. While the gravest threat is posed to a high court (it only requires buying a justice or two), other, lower-level judicial races can be just as problematic.
