Kathlyn Hotynski

In case you missed it, there were elections Tuesday.

I consider myself pretty in tune with what’s going on politically, and in truth, I didn’t realize the February primaries were Tuesday until I saw a candidate’s TV ad over the weekend.

But it was the content of the ad that caught my eye. A gentleman from La Crosse was running for La Crosse County Circuit Court. Later, I read a newspaper article about Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates.

I’m an educated man, but if I were forced to pick between two candidates for a position such as a judge, I would stare blankly at the names and move on to the next question on the ballot.

That’s not to say the position isn’t important. The justice system is obviously an integral part of our democracy and a judge is a very important part of the justice system.

But most of us don’t have law degrees or experience in their field. You think voters are uneducated when voting for governor or president?

How many people do you think would find a computer and spend an hour researching candidates for circuit court judge to try and make a decision on who to vote for? Very few.

A similar situation occurred last November during the election in which many of us did vote.

If you’re lucky, you would find a voter who knew that the Democratic nominee for attorney general, Kathleen Falk, was Dane County executive and had sought the Democratic nomination for governor in 2002. Anything more than that, and they probably had ties to the Falk campaign.

The winner, Republican J.B. Van Hollen, was arguably even less visible than Falk. President Bush appointed him U.S. attorney for Wisconsin’s Western District. An important and prominent position to be sure, but nothing that would make him a household name.

With media attention mostly focusing on the governor’s race and the marriage amendment, what did most voters base their votes on?

Most likely party affiliation and the quality of commercials.

How is the average Wisconsin person supposed to know who would make a good judge or attorney general?

It would be easier if it were taken out of the voters’ hands, which would also make the political system work better.

We have heard a lot the last few years about “activist judges.” Well, judges that are elected pose an even bigger problem.

What’s right is not always popular, and what’s popular is not always right. Never is this more accurate then when dealing with the judiciary branch.

Oftentimes judges have to make difficult decisions that the general public may not understand or agree with. The decisions usually aren’t clear cut, even in the legal profession and are open to criticism.

That’s why judges need to be protected from being ousted from their position by citizens.

What comes to mind right away is the Civil Rights movement. A lot of decisions, such as desegregating public schools, for example, were not popular at the time. However, they were the right ones, and we wouldn’t be where we are today without them.

And it’s not as if voters wouldn’t have any say in who sits on the bench. Judges are appointed by executives and approved by legislators, and we have a say in who fills those positions.

If you don’t like who your executive appointed to the bench, get that official out of there so they don’t have the opportunity to appoint more judges.

What makes possibly even less sense is certain races that are partisan.

Some excuse the attorney general’s partisanship on the basis that a Republican and Democrat see things differently, and therefore would have different opinions on the constitutionality of a law.

Wednesday, the state asked for Van Hollen’s opinion on the UW System’s holistic admissions policy, something that many of his fellow Republicans don’t support.

But why should it matter if my sheriff is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or something else?

Rule No. 2 – people that just enforce that law, like police, don’t need to have a party label in front of their name. The law is the law.

If a sheriff stopped enforcing something because he or she didn’t agree with the law in the first place, there are safeguards to ensure consequences.

There would be review boards. There would be reprimands. It would make the front pages of the paper. And then, if the voters so chose, they could vote for a new sheriff.

It’s safe to say we have enough partisanship in our system that we could stand for a little less. Eliminating party labels in races such as sheriff would be a good start to doing just that.

Many citizens are turned off to the political process so much that they don’t even bother to vote. Getting rid of judicial elections and certain party labels would be a positive step toward more citizen involvement in government.

Schaaf is a senior print journalism major and editor in chief of The Spectator.