Wisconsin has reason to celebrate. Last Tuesday we as citizens won an important victory for judicial accountability. In a recent decision, a U.S. District Court overturned the portion of the Wisconsin Judicial Conduct Code that prevents judges from disclosing to voters opinions on cases and issues. The decision held that the code unconstitutionally violates a judge’s freedom of speech. In essence, this decision allows Wisconsin voters to be educated on our judicial candidates.

Before this decision the people of Wisconsin were unable to fully educate themselves on judicial candidates. In 2005, for example, Wisconsin Family Council sought to help educate citizens about the only candidate running for State Supreme Court, incumbent Justice Ann Bradley. The justice denied our request to answer the few questions we put before her concerning her judicial philosophy. She claimed the Judicial Code as the reason. By doing so, to a large degree she forced people of Wisconsin to vote blindly.

The Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct is a part of the Supreme Court Rules. These are the rules by which the court agrees to operate. The Rules and the Code are determined by the State Supreme Court and do not require any gubernatorial or legislative approval.

To give you an idea of how the Judiciary uses this “Code of Conduct,” consider the questions we gave Justice Bradley during her re-election. Questions one and two dealt with her political and judicial philosophy. Question three called her to rank her philosophy in terms of strict constructionist or the “living document” approach. Questions four and five addressed her opinion on whether she supported, opposed, or was undecided regarding a judge displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom and whether protecting people on the basis of sexual orientation should be included in the Judicial Code. The final question simply asked her to indicate the groups or organizations with which she has or has ever had an affiliation. Obviously, none of these questions sought to jeopardize her neutrality on issues. But her responses would have most definitely helped voters cast intelligent ballots.

Judicial neutrality when hearing and deciding cases is important for administering fair and just decisions. However, it is equally important that neutrality not blind voters. In order for the Wisconsin judiciary to remain accountable to the people, the people must be allowed to educate themselves on the candidates. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in the Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which set a precedent for this distinction and again for this most recent case in our own state. The opinion stated that it is unconstitutional to restrict judicial candidates from speaking on disputed legal or political issues.

This recent decision by the Federal District Court found a good balance in allowing judges to remain silent in discussing what their opinions would be in future cases, but also in allowing voters to ask judges about their position on the court’s role in important issues, such as assisted suicide and abortion. If the people are not allowed to question the candidates during elections, then the people’s power of accountability is greatly weakened.

Often the argument made against more accountability is that there must be so-called “judicial independence,” in other words a separation of the judiciary from politics. What separates judges from politics, though, has nothing to do with accountability. That separation comes by judges’ adherence to the fundamental role of courts, to the interpretation of the law. This separation can be maintained by the people if they have the ability to hold judges accountable for their rulings, and if they understand the intent our founders had in mind for the judicial branch.

Since 1848, our state constitution has called for electing our judges. Our model for this was our older sister states in New England, where our early founders sought to make all branches of government, including the judiciary, subject to the will of the people.

When we’re called on to vote in a judicial election, we need to remember that the judicial branch of our government is not a second legislature. While courts can declare laws unconstitutional and can reverse their own decisions, they are not to make law. Even in this, they are obliged to maintain the original intent of the constitution. At no time should they be exempt from the oversight of and the will of “we the people.”

If some other loophole isn’t found, we all ought to be celebrating this victory again next spring when Governor-appointed Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler will be up for his first election. Last week’s decision should allow for more transparency in the candidates, helping Wisconsin voters to truly be knowledgeable and responsible in their voting—and that’s definitely worth celebrating.

For Wisconsin Family Council, I’m Julaine Appling reminding you the Prophet Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”