The Print Media and Judicial Elections: Some Case Studies from Wisconsin

Marquette University Law School Marquette Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2002 The rP int Media and Judicial Elections: Some Case Studies from Wisconsin Joseph D. Kearney Marquette University Law School, [email protected] Howard B. Eisenberg Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub Part of the Law Commons Publication Information Joseph D. Kearney & Howard B. Eisenberg, The rP int Media and Judicial Elections: Some Case Studies from Wisconsin, 85 Marq. L. Rev. 593 (2002) Repository Citation Kearney, Joseph D. and Eisenberg, Howard B., "The rP int Media and Judicial Elections: Some Case Studies from Wisconsin" (2002). Faculty Publications. Paper 32. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/facpub/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 85 Spring 2002 Number 3 THE PRINT MEDIA AND JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: SOME CASE STUDIES FROM WISCONSIN JOSEPH D. KEARNEY* & HOWARD B. EISENBERG** INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................ 594 I. INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION FOR THE STUDY ........................... 598 A. Judicial Selection in Wisconsin ..................................................... 598 B. Methodology of the Study ............................................................. 602 II. THE ABRAHAMSON-ROSE SUPREME COURT RACE ...................... 607 A. The Candidates and the Campaign in Brief ................................ 609 B. Newspaper Coverage of the Campaign ........................................ 612 C. An Empirical Assessment of the Information in the N ew spapers ...................................................................................... 636 1. N ews A rticles ............................................................................. 639 2. E ditorials .................................................................................... 655 3. O pinion Pieces ........................................................................... 662 4. Letters to the Editor .................................................................. 666 5. A dvertisem ents .......................................................................... 670 III. COUNTY RACES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT ..................................... 673 A .Lincoln County ............................................................................... 674 B. Colum bia County ............................................................................ 683 C. Jefferson County ............................................................................. 692 D. Fond du Lac County ....................................................................... 704 E. La Crosse County ........................................................................... 710 F. Waukesha County ........................................................................... 718 Associate Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School <joseph.kearney@marquette. edu>. B.A., Yale University, 1986; J.D., Harvard University, 1989. .. Dean and Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School <howard.eisenberg@ marquette.edu>. B.A., Northwestern University, 1968; J.D., University of Wisconsin, 1971. The authors express their appreciation to Ronald R. Hofer and James B. Speta for comments on a draft of this Article and to Martha C. Carlson, Tyson A. Ciepluch, Thomas M. Hruz, Natalie R. Kartes, Matthew P. Mooney, Andrew T. O'Neill, Robert J. Pluta, and Charles D. Schmidt for research assistance. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [85:593 G .M ilwaukee County .........................................................................731 1. Patricia McMahon's Defense of Her Branch 18 Seat Against Andrew Shaw .............................................................731 2. The Race for the Newly Created Branch 47 .........................736 3. The Race for Branch 22 Between Incumbent William Haese and Challenger Peter Earle ..........................742 4. The Race for Branch 19 Between Incumbent John McCormick and Challenger James Flynn ....................746 H .D iscussion ........................................................................................749 IV.SOME OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER R ESEA RCH ............................................................................................760 A .O bservations ....................................................................................761 B . A ssessm ent ......................................................................................770 C. Suggestions for Further Research .................................................776 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The optimal means of judicial selection remains a subject of endless debate. The variety of approaches employed around the Nation attests to the essentially unresolvable nature of the matter. Some jurisdictions require judges to be chosen through contested elections; others through gubernatorial appointment followed by retention elections; still others through a so-called merit-selection process; and so 1 on. Notwithstanding this variety of approaches, the vast majority of jurisdictions have settled upon one common point. Specifically, outside of the federal government, where judges possess life tenure during "good [b]ehaviour," 2 most jurisdictions require their judges to stand for election at some point. This is true even of most states that have eschewed the direct electoral system in the first instance and have 1. For summaries of the manner in which judges are selected around the Nation, see ROBERT A. CARP & RONALD STIDHAM, JUDICIAL PROCESS IN AMERICA 262-67 (4th ed. 1998); PATRICK M. MCFADDEN, ELECTING JUSTICE: THE LAW AND ETHICS OF JUDICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS 5-6, 9, 177-88 (1990); Steven P. Croley, The MajoritarianDifficulty: Elective Judiciaries and the Rule of Law, 62 U. CHI. L. REV. 689 (1995); Daniel Deja, How Judges Are Selected: A Survey of the Judicial Selection Process in the United States, 75 MICH. B.J. 904 (1996). 2. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1. Only seven federal judges have been removed from office through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. See Sambhav N. Sankar, Disciplining the ProfessionalJudge, 88 CAL. L. REV. 1233, 1249 & n.93 (2000). 2002] THE PRINT MEDIA AND JUDICIAL ELECTIONS instead vested initial-selection power in governors or commissions In these circumstances, one would expect that those debating modes of judicial selection would inquire into the types of information available to voters in these elections. And, in fact, there have been some studies that have addressed how much information voters have when they pull the lever or punch out the chad in judicial elections. These studies have tended to demonstrate that voters know fairly little about the individuals seeking judicial office.4 In our judgment, however, the question of the amount of information actually possessed by voters can be only part of the inquiry. We do not doubt that demonstrating that voters are ill-informed in making judicial selections constitutes a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about how judges should be picked. At the same time, it is also important to ask how much information about candidates is available to those voters interested in seeking it out. In other words, the extent of any voter ignorance must be assessed against the backdrop of the type and amount of information within the reach of voters. No one questions, after all, whether Americans should have the right to elect most of their state and federal representatives, even though it is widely accepted here, too, that many voters are fairly ignorant of the candidates' policies.5 Society simply accepts that many voters know very little about the political candidates between whom they must choose, even while it would not tolerate a system in which such knowledge were 3. See MCFADDEN, supra note 1, at 177-88 (setting forth appendix with table summarizing initial-selection and retention processes in each state). 4. See, e.g.,. Herbert Jacob, Judicial Insulation-Elections, Direct Participation, and Public Attention to the Courts in Wisconsin, 1966 Wis. L. REV. 801; R. Neal McKnight et al., Choosing Judges: Do Voters Know What They're Doing?, 62 JUDICATURE 94 (1978); Glenn R. Winters, How Much Do Voters Know or Care About Judicial Candidates?,38 J. AM. JUD. SOC'Y 141 (1955). Of course, the debates associated with judicial elections extend well beyond the amount of voter knowledge. Recently, for example, campaign tactics and financing have come under considerable scrutiny and have prompted some calls for change. See William Glaberson, States Taking Steps to Rein In Excesses of Judicial Politicking,N.Y. TIMES, June 15, 2001, at Al; William Glaberson, Justices Urge Stricter Rules for Judicial Elections, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 26, 2001, at A16; William Glaberson, A Bipartisan Effort to Remove Politicsfrom JudicialRaces, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2000, at A18. 5. See generally ANGUs CAMPBELL ET AL., THE AMERICAN VOTER 188, 215 (1960); ERIC R.A.N. SMITH, THE UNCHANGING AMERICAN VOTER 1, 9,109-10,167,190 (1989); L. SANDY MAISEL, PARTIES AND ELECrIONS IN AMERICA 96-97,101 (2d ed. 1993); RICHARD G. NIEMI & HERBERT F. WEISBERG, CLASSICS IN VOTING BEHAVIOR

Load more