Independence and Accountability in Wisconsin’s Lower Courts
All methods of judicial selection must account for and balance the competing goals of judicial independence and judicial accountability. Judge James Wynn, Jr. and Eli Mazur described judicial independence as an “immunity from extra-legal pressures” and judicial accountability as the judiciary’s “responsiveness to public opinion.” A method of selection cannot treat independence and accountability as having equal importance. Independence — immunity from extra-legal pressures — must come at the expense of accountability — responsiveness to public opinion, a form of extra-legal pressure.
The three primary methods of judicial selection in the United States are appointment (either by the executive or the legislature), election, and merit selection. Appointment is viewed as the best method for promoting judicial independence. Election is viewed as the best method for promoting judicial accountability. And merit selection attempts to split the difference by having the executive make an appointment from a pool of candidates selected by representatives of the public.
When the issue of judicial selection comes up in a public forum, the focus of the discussion is typically on how to select judges to a state’s highest court. Wisconsin experienced a public debate on the selection of Supreme Court Justices last spring because of the content of the campaigning and the influx of special-interest group spending during the Supreme Court elections of 2007 and 2008. Judge Diane Sykes summarized the public debate that appeared in Wisconsin’s major newspapers in her speech published in the most recent issue of the Marquette Law Review.