Letters

Clarifying the New Citation System

SCR chapter 80, effective Jan. 1, 2000, changes the citation method for any published opinions of the supreme court or the court of appeals to one that is independent of any particular printed version. The new citations will include the year of the decision, the name of the court issuing the decision, and the sequential number of the opinion assigned by the court at the time of its release. For example, a citation from the Wisconsin Supreme Court will appear in this format: Blue v. Green, 2000 Wis 345. Pinpoint citations, if needed, indicate a paragraph number. In the article "Wisconsin to Use New Citation System in 2000," found on page 9 of the July Wisconsin Lawyer, it may have been unclear that even under the new rules an initial citation still must include the volumes and page numbers of both the Wisconsin Reports and the North Western Reporter in which the opinion is published in addition to any public domain citation. For example, Blue v. Green, 89 Wis. 2d 296, 456 N.W. 2d 234, 2000 Wis 345.

Supreme Court Order 95-01, setting forth the new citation system, can be found on page 34 in the August Wisconsin Lawyer.

WL Editors

Slowdowns in Judicial Confirmations Threaten Institutional Independence of the Judiciary

The recent reported Senate slowdown in judicial confirmations threatens not so much the decision-making independence of individual judges, but perhaps even more ominously, the institutional independence of the judiciary as a separate and co-equal branch of government. Slowdowns that commence before any presidential election year are a particularly disturbing trend. For example, as of June 1, 1999, fully one-fourth of the positions on the 9th Circuit had not been filled.

In previous judicial nomination and confirmation slowdowns during the Clinton administration, the Senate and the White House battled mainly over the perceived political ideology of individual nominees. One recent slowdown, however, is a product of political maneuvering completely unrelated to the judiciary. Some Senators vowed to stall some or all presidential nominations, including judicial nominees, in response to a controversial recess appointment of an ambassador. (The Constitution allows the President to make a temporary appointment during a congressional recess; the recently appointed ambassador is eligible to serve without Senate confirmation through the end of 2000).

The judiciary in particular should never be forced to suffer the fallout of political battles between Congress and the White House. Adequate judicial staffing and resources are clearly in the public interest.

Our executive and legislative branches now have the opportunity to demonstrate their support for a strong and independent judiciary. It is time for the political branches to honor their commitment to timely nomination and confirmation of our federal judges.

Lawrence S. Okinaga, President
American Judicature Society

Seth S. Andersen, Director
Hunter Center for Judicial Selection

Judicial Campaigns: Appoint Judges From Panels of Screened Aspirants

Now that the mud has settled following our recent Wisconsin Supreme Court judicial election, I wonder whether it isn't time that some serious thoughtful consideration be given to the method by which our judicial offices are filled.

In my 50 years of law practice we have seen the shift in judicial elections from mostly personal appeals based upon claims of experience, character, and expertise in the law, to divisive, emotional, unfounded, and baseless charges against opponents, whether or not they are incumbents. Obviously, the advent of television has given judicial candidates an avenue to get a message to the general public, most of whom in the past had been pretty much oblivious of judicial races. Now 20- and 30-second spots are mixed in with other commercials in every situation comedy, soap opera, and sports telecast.

The recent supreme court election hit a new low. Except for a few petty and mostly irrelevant personality clashes, it consisted of the challenger making the amazing claim that the incumbent Chief Justice understood the intent of the Bill of Rights and had the audacity to apply and uphold those rights, even in cases where their application was unpopular with the general public.

The bar as a whole should be embarrassed by the use of such tactics and determined to do something about it.

I can already hear the moans, mostly from nonlawyers - more than 80 percent of whom did not bother to vote in the recent election - that they will be deprived of their right to choose judges. Nonetheless, I think that a well-prepared and presented campaign, pointing out the advantages of appointing judges from panels of screened aspirants who later run on their records, can succeed.

Does the State Bar have the fortitude to suggest and work for such a change?

Daniel T. Flaherty
La Crosse

Suggestions for Bar to Better Serve Members

I join in the objection made by Jeffrey M. Gonyo published in the letters column in the May issue. I find the payment of dues and mandatory membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin financially burdensome, and the dues increase obviously doesn't help.

As a member of both the Minnesota and Wisconsin bar associations, I have compared the attitude toward and services provided to members. I do not feel that I receive fair value for my Wisconsin membership dues. Perhaps this is due, in part, to the fact that I do not reside in Madison or Milwaukee.

I believe the State Bar of Wisconsin could better serve its members by decreasing the amount of "junk mail" sent, charging fees on the basis of services actually provided, and providing for payment of dues based on income earned. After all, isn't the function of the Bar association, at least in part, to serve the needs of its members?

Patricia J. (P.J.) Miller
Wilson

Correction to Military Pension Article

The article, "A Primer on Dividing a Military Pension" in the August issue contained an incomplete sentence. The last sentence on page 19 should read, "An active duty member's retired pay is calculated on years and months of creditable service and base pay at retirement." The remainder of that paragraph is correct.

WL Editors

Pondering ...

Why do banks charge you a "non-sufficient funds fee" on money they already know you don't have?

Tell people that there are 400 billion stars and they'll believe you. Tell them a bench has wet paint and they have to touch it.

Wisconsin Lawyer