
By Bill Kraus
An interesting compromise between those who support an elected judiciary and those who prefer an appointed one was casually and quietly trashed during the radical winter of 2011.
What was given the brush off was something called the Impartial Justice Act.
It was enacted at the request of all the sitting members of the Supreme Court who had witnessed or suffered the precipitous decline in the seriousness and civility of several recent Supreme Court campaigns.
What the act would have done was fully fund those campaigns if the participants accepted public money in exchange for not raising their own campaign warchests.
This act was intended to end the unseemly process of (mostly) lawyers paying for the campaigns of the judges they would appear before.
The justices got half of what they wanted when the Legislature enacted the law, but they didn’t get what they considered enough money to run respectable statewide campaigns as a part of the deal. They evidently considered this uncalled for penuriousness a fixable and a small, hopefully temporary, price to pay for the greater good of not being thought of as beholden to questionable fundraising practices.