By RYAN J. FOLEY | The Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin judges can join political parties, endorse partisan candidates for office and solicit campaign donations after a federal judge struck down rules prohibiting those activities.

In a decision released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb found the rules do little to advance an independent judiciary and violate judges’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
Wisconsin Judicial Commission executive director Jim Alexander said he was disappointed and consulting with Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen on whether to appeal. The rules can’t be enforced in the meantime.

Observers said the decision will open the door for parties to get more involved in judicial elections and make it easier for judges to raise campaign cash. They predicted that most judges, however, would not join parties.

The decision might accelerate the state’s trend toward nasty, special-interest fueled, nonpartisan-in-name-only judicial campaigns, said Mike McCabe, of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

“It’s one more way that our judicial system will be heading down a path that I think ultimately only serves to undermine public confidence,” said McCabe, whose group advocates campaign finance reform.

Crabb’s decision is the latest to strike down similar prohibitions since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 invalidated a Minnesota rule that prohibited judicial candidates from sharing views on political issues. Since then, courts have given judges greater free speech protections.

Lawyers representing the state argued the rules kept judges from being influenced by party affiliations, promoted confidence in the judiciary and kept donors from feeling coerced into giving money to judges.

Judicial elections in Wisconsin have been officially nonpartisan since 1913 and the judicial code has prohibited judges from joining parties since 1968. The code was changed in 2004 to bar judges from endorsing partisan candidates and soliciting donations. Rules require judges to raise money through committees; they cannot even sign fundraising letters.

In her 65-page decision, Crabb said the rules go too far in limiting what judicial candidates can tell voters.

She said rules barring party membership and partisan endorsements don’t eliminate bias, they only hide it. Numerous Wisconsin judges likely have strong political preferences but those in their courtrooms have no way to know that, she said.

“The best way to eliminate potential bias is to shine a light on it, not cover it up,” she said.

Crabb said in other elections, including recent races for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it’s been clear which candidates are supported by the two major political parties. Candidates should be able to say “what everyone already knows,” she wrote.

What’s more, partisanship appears to be less of a threat to judicial independence than special interest groups that have spent big money to elect judges, Crabb said.

Lastly, the rule forcing judges to raise money through committees does nothing to promote judicial integrity, Crabb wrote. Judges still find out who donates and voters are wary of judges ruling on cases involving donors, she wrote.

Rather than barring party membership or fundraising, Crabb suggested the state should require judges to recuse themselves in cases involving parties or donors.

The ruling does not mean judges will have partisan affiliations listed on the ballot or give political parties control over judicial nominations. Judicial candidates will still be barred from “appealing to partisan interests.”

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Siefert, who filed the lawsuit challenging the rules, said he is now free to rejoin the Democratic Party — which he did Wednesday morning — raise money for his 2011 campaign and endorse Democrats without violating ethics rules.

He predicted the vast majority of judges, unlike him, would remain nonpartisan.

“But I want the public to know that I am a law-and-order Democrat,” said Siefert, once a delegate to the party’s national convention and an alternate elector for President Clinton. “It’s a shorthand way of summarizing where I stand on basic issues.”

Spokesman Bill Cosh said Van Hollen was reviewing whether to appeal the decision. In a statement last year, the Republican said he wanted to keep Wisconsin judges nonpartisan and the case could be “a defining moment in Wisconsin’s history.”

“When someone walks into a courtroom they shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not the judge sitting there has an R or a D behind their name,” he said.