Statement of Purpose
SCR 60.06(2)(a) states that Wisconsin adheres to the concept of a nonpartisan judiciary and that a candidate for judicial offices “shall not appeal to partisanship and shall avoid partisan activity in the spirit of a nonpartisan judiciary.” Further, SCR 60.06(3)(a) states that candidates for judicial office “should maintain, in campaign conduct, the dignity appropriate to judicial office and the integrity and independence of the judiciary” and that candidates for judicial office “should always bear in mind the need for scrupulous adherence to the rules of fair play while engaged in a campaign for judicial office.” More specifically, SCR 60.06(3) proscribes certain campaign conduct and rhetoric, including any false statements and certain misrepresentations during the course of judicial campaigns. Such conduct undermines public trust and confidence in the judiciary and is contrary to the ultimate goal of a fair, impartial, open-minded and independent judiciary.
The Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee Regulations and Procedures and the Agreement Regarding Judicial Election Campaign Advertising, attached hereto, are not designed nor intended to infringe upon judicial candidates’ freedom of expression or association under the First Amendment. These documents do not have a purpose extending beyond the balance struck in SCR 60.06 between protected and unprotected speech.
The foremost concern, however, reflects the widely shared view that judicial elections are in some respects different from elections of persons seeking executive or legislative office. Elected judges are not to be viewed as “representatives” in the same sense that non-judicial officials commonly are so regarded.
Although our voters elect judges, as noted above, Wisconsin adheres to the principle of a nonpartisan judiciary. The Wisconsin Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct include several provisions that treat judges and justices as uniquely different from other elected officials: (1) Supreme Court justices’ terms are uniquely long (10 years, Art. VI, §4); (2) only judges and justices are subject to either impeachment, special disciplinary process or removal by address (Art. VII, §1, 11 and 13); the legislature can impose a mandatory retirement age on judges and justices (Art. VII, § 24); and (3) only judges cannot run for a non-judicial office without first resigning (SCR 60.06(1m)). Also, judges and justices must be an attorney licensed to practice in Wisconsin for at least 5 years in order to be eligible for judicial office (Art. VII §24); it is hard to conceive of barring voters from choosing, say, a legislator who lacks prescribed training and experience relevant to the office. Last, our Code of Judicial Conduct bars judges and candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds (SCR 60.06(4)).
Such provisions in our constitution, similar provisions in the constitution of other states that elect judges, and numerous other statutes and rules in many states, all reflect that a judge’s job differs in fundamental ways from the work of other elected officials. Such fundamental differences are the reason that so many states have sought to regulate judicial elections in ways that would be inconceivable for any other elections.
The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges and justices to administer justice to all in a nonpartisan manner; to be arbiters of conflict, not spokespersons for the varying interests of certain political or demographic constituencies; and to be fair and impartial. Thus, judicial candidates should aspire to and achieve an appropriate standard of campaign conduct.
