The success of Annette Ziegler in her bid for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice had to be the most disturbing election result of the April 3rd elections. This was an election for a “non-partisan” office, that was anything but non-partisan. The Republicans openly backed Ziegler, while the Democrat’s candidate was Linda Clifford.
Ideology aside, there was a serious question of ethics with disclosures that Ziegler often ruled on cases in which she or her husband had a financial interest --- without disclosing that interest to the parties involved in the judicial proceeding.
As announced today in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Wisconsin State Ethics Board has filed a complaint against Ziegler for improperly deciding cases in which she had a conflicting interest.
It is especially noteworthy that the independent Ethics Board has never before filed a complaint against a sitting judge.
The disturbing part of all this, is that the voters gave Ziegler 58% of the vote, despite the widespread knowledge of her actions, prior to the election. This was not a case in which the facts came to light after the election, it was all well known to the electorate long before they entered the voting booth.
Prior to the election, the State Journal reported that Ziegler presided over at least 22 cases involving companies in which she owned $50,000 or more in stock and 46 cases involving a bank where her husband is on the board of directors without withdrawing or revealing a possible conflict of interest.
Prior to the election, as reported by the State Journal, Ziegler even acknowledged that she had not followed the law.
“In two campaign stops, Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler repeatedly defended her choice as a circuit judge to preside over dozens of cases involving a bank with which she had personal and financial ties.
Ziegler said she uses a "gut check" to decide if she has a conflict of interest. Her husband's position on the bank's board of directors didn't affect her judgment in the cases, she said.”
As reported in the In Dodgeville Chronicle,
“The most pointed questioning came from Elsa Greene, of Barneveld, a former deputy of the agency that regulates attorney conduct. She held a copy of the Supreme Court rules.
Said Greene: "Do you consider the rule applicable to you?
Ziegler responded, "I am a good judge."
Greene repeated the question.
Ziegler responded, "I do the best I can to be fair and impartial."
On Monday, the newspaper also reviewed five cases handled by Ziegler involving United Healthcare of Wisconsin. Ziegler owns more than $50,000 in stock in United Healthcare. The files, which covered cases heard between 2002 and 2006, also showed no evidence that Ziegler notified the parties of a potential conflict of interest.
Ziegler declined to answer questions about the United Healthcare cases, saying she would have to review them to determine whether she had a conflict of interest. Alexander, of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, said Monday the test is whether the investment is significant to the judge, significant to the company issuing the stock or would "raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality." “
Now that the voters have elected Ziegler to the Highest Court in the State, despite her acknowledged violation of the law, the following questions come to mind:
1) Do the voters care enough to learn about the issues and candidates prior to casting their vote?
2) Is partisanship so hardened that voters will hold their noses and vote for the candidate their party supports ?
3) With all the money put into the race by special interests, party supporters and the candidates themselves (this was the most expensive race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court ever), is this just an example of the “best government money can buy ?
Lastly, if we as voters choose to leave our morals and ethics at home when we go out to vote --- don’t we deserve the kind of government we get ?
What do you think ?
Please e mail your opinion to me and I will publish it in this blog.
