April 7- Republicans want to take the voters right away, and instill their choice of chief Justice.

[midnight]

This decision to give the Tom Tiffanies the decision making power will be decided on a referendum on the day we decide which judge to vote for Justice Ann Walsh or Judge Daley...


"The voters of Wisconsin should be able to keep power to chose the chief justice, not a handful of judges," he said.

The groups represented at the news conference said the Republican-backed effort was a partisan attack on Abrahamson.

"It's quite clear Wisconsin is reaching a meltdown stage," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, who called the proposal "pure political hardball."

GOP lawmakers approved the measure twice -- in 2013 and again this year -- which now sends it to voters for a final decision. Supporters have characterized the measure as one that makes the court fairer."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/297272861.html

[FBaggins]

1. That title doesn't seem to fit

The people don't currently have the power to select the chief... and the referendum is obviously an exercise of "voters' rights" anyway.

The current system gives the job to the oldest member of the court (or longest serving). The only reason the new plan is undesireable is that we know it will result in a conservative in the seat... not because the design of the plan is otherwise unreasonable.

[dragonlady]

2. Majority vote of the justices is a bad idea

It can only heighten the partisan divide on the court as the justices negotiate among themselves for control. A neutral method of choosing the chief has worked just fine since 1889 and doesn't need to be "fixed." Do we really need a newbie on the court to be in charge of its budget and schedule and the administration of the whole Wisconsin court system? Seniority is a good thing here. The voters who elect and reelect a justice are presumed to know that that person will become chief and are comfortable with it. And why would the Republicans be so eager to get this on a low-turnout ballot if it were not designed to give themselves even more power than they already have? I think we must defend the nationally recognized justice who is their target and defend her.

[midnight]

3. Sorry that my title does not convey the undesirable via their design...

So the design is alright, but not the outcome. Do I understand your objection right? But I guess some of us thought that this was already decided via 2009 vote that gave her win over Randy Koschnick-Hence-my title.

[FBaggins]

4. Close enough

The primary objection that I have with their plan is that it's an attempt to change the rules to achieve a different outcome... not to improve the system.

OTOH, if I didn't know who the judges were and what state this was for... I think I would prefer a system where the judges on the court select the chief... over one that was just by age/seniority on that court.

[midnight]

5. The sad part is we know who these judges are-

https://bdgrdemocracy.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/investigative-report-koch-industries-and-the-wisconsin-judiciary/