by mal contends

Public financing, education, and aggressive journalism point the way out of the unholy mess the election of Wisconsin Supreme Court justices has become.

So bad is Wisconsin that we are now a poster child for a nationwide problem with electing judges.

Another part of the solution proposed is more aggressive recusal rules, negating the rationale behind buying a Supreme Court seat.

From the Brennan Center for Justice's Justice Under Seige:

‘Don’t worry about the result; just tell me what the law is.’

Such a directive ought to be the mission, objective and goal of every justice of the state’s top appellate court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

If one were to ask candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court their commitment to the above principle, one can expect a declaration of absolute fidelity.

But you would not deduce the presence of this judicial ethos from the campaigns of the two leading candidates for the seat in the current election, Justice Louis Butler and Judge Michael Gableman.

James Sample, counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, is introducing the nation to the ethics of the Wisconsin judiciary.

And it's not pretty.

Sample's Can $2 Million For A Judge Buy A $350 Million Tax Refund? in the Huffington Post rips Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler's corruption and the system allowing her to continue in her position.

Sample sees the Ziegler affair as emblematic of a national trend as state judicial systems become corrupt political machines.

Writes Sample:

In short, the influence of big money in our nation's state courts is nearing the point where, well, "you're going to want to tell your great grandkids about what happened to the rule of law in America back in the day."

The Capital Times became the first daily newspaper to call for the resignation of Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Annette Ziegler.

We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.

Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.

Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.

Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.

Update: Kos reader says 540,425 signatures for recall during a given 60-day period.

 If ever there were a clear case for a citizen recall of a state-wide public official, Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler is she.

Today's Capital Times raises the possibility of a citizen recall should, as expected, the Wisconsin Supreme Court neither suspends nor expels the corrupt Ziegler.

Writes the Cap Times editorial:

The legal quagmire that is created by Ziegler's presence on the court is shameful. But Ziegler has no shame. Even as she admits to past wrongdoing, for which she faces an as-yet-undetermined punishment, the justice holds a seat she secured by deliberately deceiving the voters of Wisconsin.

Experience suggests that officials such as Ziegler are eventually tripped up by their own ethical missteps. If that does not happen, then a case can certainly be made for a citizen-initiated recall that would force Ziegler to face the voters in an election where her admissions of judicial wrongdoing would be known to the electorate.

Sounds good.

###

Update III:  SCR 60.03  A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
A.  SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."

Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 

Update II: Hearing ended.

One Wisconsin Now launches a new site exposing blatantly corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Annette Ziegler
###