Elections for Judges Are Getting Nastier

Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler

Opponents, however, say these proposals would shift too much power into the hands of the governor without sufficient checks and balances. "It's really not merit selection, it's really just partisanship," says Seth Andersen, executive vice president of the American Judicature Society.

Back in Wisconsin, however, the question of reform centers on what role the rising costs of elections have on the judicial system. Special interests added $4 million to the $1 million that Gableman and Butler spent on the Supreme Court race. Business and conservative groups backed Gableman, while liberal groups and the teachers union aided Butler. Business groups said their increasing interest in the Supreme Court stemmed from the changing tone of the court, notably some of Butler's rulings they perceived as antibusiness. Many singled out a 2005 opinion that allowed a class action lawsuit against the paint industry to go forward even though the plaintiff could not prove which company caused the lead poisoning. (Ultimately, however, the plaintiff did not win.)

Liberal groups similarly saw the court in balance. That's why this year's race included heavy spending from the teachers union, which jumped in for Butler after seeing business outspend the liberal groups and win in last year's Supreme Court race.

Yet the big spending, at least in Wisconsin, seems likely to continue. A bill creating public financing for judicial elections passed the Democratic Senate in February but was not brought to a vote in the Republican-controlled House. And the negative ads may be here to stay. In both cases, the results for the judiciary could be harsh, critics say. "These outside ads kind of bloody both candidates regardless of who wins," says Jon Wilcox, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. "It's very corrosive to the court system itself."