The more one hears about the candidates for Walworth County circuit judge, the more one comes to see that only two of the candidates seem to understand the office for which they are contesting. Along the way, one has no trouble seeing that the Whitewater Register doesn’t understand the role, either.
Yesterday, I had fun teasing about the campaign signs for the circuit judge candidates for Walworth County.
See, Judicial Candidates for Walworth County Circuit Court.
(Quick note: I think the candidate’s sign on the lawn of the Whitewater city attorney’s firm is a matter of bad form reflecting on the city attorney, not the candidate. Then, a more important question is the quality of legal opinion the city receives, a subject for another day.)
There’s more about these candidates, over at the Whitewater Register, in its February 4th edition. On page eight of that formerly local newspaper, there’s an article entitled, “Candidates connect: Q & A with the Walworth County Circuit Court judge contenders.” The story asks seven questions of the candidates:
1. How do you differ from your opponents?
2. What is your favorite thing to do or place to visit in Walworth County?
3. What do you see as the most pressing issue facing the Walworth County judicial sysem?
4. Do you think that Walworth County is tough enough on sex offenders? Would you like to see any changes in prevention, prosecution or sentenciong with regard to sex offenses in the county? If so, what?
5. County officials are currently examing the possibility of jail expansion, which could cost taxpayers millions. How would you work to keep the jail population down, while staying tough on crime?
6. Walworth County jail is said to be the “Beverly Hills” of jails — because inmates have the ability to order food, among other comforts. Is Walworth County jail too cozy?
7. Who is your favorite TV judge?
Two of the questions — what to do in Walworth County, and favorite TV judge — are just frivolous. One silly question might make sense, but I’d guess the Register thinks only the question about a favorite TV judge is silly. They’re wrong — there’s a diminuition of the judicial role when prattling along like a candidate for town council about one’s favorite activites in Walworth County. The candidates all talk about loving their families, with mentions of the county fair, picking strawberries, boating, etc.
One of the questions is simply false, and absurdly so — the idea that the Walworth County jail might be the “Beverly Hills’ of jails, or the implication that inmates are ordering takeout. The question is oddly ignorant of how the jail operates, suggests a nickname for the jail that only a buffoon would use, and is easily and correctly dismissed by all of the candidates as false and misleading.
Of the seven questions printed for publication, two are silly and irrelevant to the judicial role, and one is simply erroneous.
Consider, though, the question about a true concern — sex offenders. The question poses a problem for society, but an even bigger problem for these candidates. As candidates Reddy and Letteney correctly note, there are limits on judicial candidates’ answers to open-ended questions like this, under Wisconsin rules of conduct. Reddy observes that
It would be irreponsible to answer the question the question as phrased. Every defendant should be sentenced based upon the specfic facts presented to a court. The law requires that a judge consider the gravity of the offense, the offender’s character and the
public’s need for protection.
Letteney notes that
This is a difficult question to answer, because under the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Conduct, judges and judicial candidates are not permitted to state how they would rule in certain cases. In addition, law enforcement is primarily responsible for crime prevention and the District Attorney is responsible for prosecution.
Only Reddy and Letteney seem to have understood the obligations of a judicial candidate, at least in these published remarks, in answering the question. A version of what they said should have been the first words of any judicial candidate in reponse to a question like this.
Answering this way implies no weakness toward crime — on the contrary, it’s evidence of a much needed respect for the nature of a judicial role. I have no sympathy for violent criminals, nor other
crimes against people or property. Judges are not, however, and cannot be, prosecutors or defense attorneys. Wisconsin rules of conduct for judges and judicial candidates address the unique role of judge, apart from advocate.
Some of these answers are more political than judicial. One might at least have hoped, though, that all those answering a question would understand the simple, clear rules by which judicial candidates should be bound. Perhaps we should be fortunate, in Walworth County, that even half the candidates did.