brouxman.com

Here’s a good idea, Wisconsin voters:  don’t decide who to vote for in a Wisconsin Supreme Court election by watching  TV ads alone.  This is the 2nd straight election in consecutive years in WI where ads on TV airwaves featured primarily ads promoting why NOT to vote for a particular candidate rather than why one should vote for a particular candidate. 

 I’m hardly a wonk for issues before the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, and I know current justice Annette Ziegler (elected ‘07)  did not recuse herself (before election to Supreme Court) in 11 cases involving a bank for which her husband was on the board.  Her opponent Linda Clifford made sure I knew by turning on the TV and watching ads against Ziegler.  She had a point:  the State ethics board found that Ziegler’s conduct–while it didn’t ”benefit her personally” from any of the cases –merited a $5000 fine and a public reprimand, and a “here’s a good idea what not to do” finger-wagging for elected judges statewide.  I don’t know why Clifford didn’t spend more money on TV pitching why she’d be better than Ziegler.  Perhaps she didn’t have much cash and wanted bang for the buck.  Ziegler hardly took the high road herself . .  . my summary recollection of her campaign was a) ‘at least I’m a judge’ and b) unspecific anti-liberal blather which has come to mean nothing for me because it’s been invoked so much for well over two decades as to be rendered without meaning in Wisconsin and national campaigns.  Issues please, people, issues!

Turn the clock ahead to 2008:  TV ads for Michael Gableman and incumbent Louis Butler  suggested that if each’s opponent is elected, the result would be repeal of the rule of law and emptying of prisons and jails, leaving us poor citizens defenseless against criminals’ mayhem.  Wisconsin’s courts are hardly at risk in this regard, and WI continues to be mentioned as a state with a consistently high incarceration rate, especially for black males. 

Maybe the message for me is “turn off the TV and read something” if I want to be better informed.  Still why wouldn’t a candidate want to say more about why he/she SHOULD be a judge as to why his/her opponent SHOULDN’T?  It appears to me they’re figuring the average person will not spend much time on their campaign.   Perhaps they’re correct. Thus if voters’ collective attention can be grabbed with pithy ads painting an opponent as satan, why not do it?

Because that approach makes me sick.  Because I’m a civics class nerd who cares and thinks it’s important to vote, and such campaigning makes people LESS likely to vote.  Because I respect the willingness of individuals of all political stripes who make time in hectic modern life for public service and I want my intelligence to receive like respect from candidates running for office. 

A friend of Russian descent recently ended a decade-long wait to become a US Citizen and is now a fellow American as of March 26.  I wonder what he thinks of his first State election he’ll vote in as a citizen. I hope he’s counting on more than TV to frame the issues for him re the Wisconsin State Supreme Court .

This kind of campaigning doesn’t make me particularly proud to be an American.  I’ll give Justice Butler, who I’ve seen speak and I tend to like, a bit of late credit for touting some of his own credentials and getting Sen. Herb Kohl on the stump for him in late-running ads (apparently Butler isn’t concerned about invoking the wrath of the 17 hard-core Milwaukee Bucks fans still in residence in the state).  Still, Justice Butler, why let it get so late before “going positive”?  If the ads against Gableman weren’t yours, the public will still think they are yours unless you take action. 

Better late than never, but I still prefer sooner.  I don’t want to buy the idea ”going narrow” is how it’s done”.