Governor Jim Doyle called the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race a “tragedy.” Louis Butler, the losing candidate, said our election system is “broken.” The executive director of Fair Wisconsin, the state’s largest pro-homosexual group said the election was “disgusting.” State Representative Mark Pocan, an open homosexual and a Democrat from Madison, in an ominous letter to the WI Dept. of Revenue, said the race was “a spending spree between outside interest groups.” This type of rhetoric hasn’t slowed down since the results of the state Supreme Court election were announced late last Tuesday night.

Most of the belly-aching has come from those whose candidate did not win—and they can’t believe it, accept it or get over it. From their perspective it was a tragedy or a travesty. Suggestions from politicians and political pundits include scrapping the entire election process for Supreme Court justices and having them appointed instead. Others, such as Rep. Pocan, want the state to audit third parties involved in the race, and Rep. Pridemore, a Republican from Hartford, is calling for a law requiring disclaimers and reporting for third-party groups.

Ok—so this year’s Supreme Court race was high-profile and a bit ugly, but a “tragedy”? Come on. The alternative is a low-profile election where even fewer people know about the race, get involved or are informed on the candidates and issues. And that’s not good for anybody. I think it’s fair to say that many of us would have had no idea we even had a Supreme Court election and who was running if it hadn’t been for third-party activities.

Certainly, the candidates have control over the tenor of their own campaigns, and both sides definitely did their fair share of mudslinging; and that’s unfortunate. What’s important to remember is that neither candidate can control third party ads. They can call for them to be honest, factual and fair; but the campaigns and the candidates can’t control them.

In spite of all that happened, I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater by outlawing third-party involvement. The information they provide helps us make discerning choices between candidates. The candidates themselves who are running for these types of non-partisan statewide offices cannot begin to raise the money nor put together the mechanism needed to disseminate information all across the state. Likely, those who are grousing now would rather you and I, as conservatives, stay completely in the dark about the election and the candidates.

Remember who those third-party interest groups represent. Frankly, some of them represent you and me! But all of them represent their constituents concerns and interests. The third parties acted in what they perceived to be the best interests of their respective constituents because they and their constituents had a stake in the outcome of the race.

Certainly, we expect both the candidates and the third parties involved to be factual, responsible and honest. The attempt by some third parties to mislead voters was a travesty of our trust. Each and every group or individual who was involved in this race or any future race has a moral and civic responsibility to do their research and be accurate and responsible.

But imagine what the campaign would have been like if no third parties were allowed to get involved—even if everything they said and represented was 100% accurate. Now that would have been a true tragedy.

I believe we need to be careful about any legislation and any rules that would essentially eliminate third party interest groups. That’s stifling free speech, and it won’t do anyone any good.

The media and politicos seem to always assume you and I can’t tell fact from fiction, truth from a lie. I think we can—but, these types of third party ads do require that the average citizen get informed from sources they know and trust—and then evaluate those ads based on that information. That, to my way of thinking, is the triumph of the democratic election system.

I submit to you that a controversial Supreme Court election does not undermine the system of justice; it highlights the issues for voters. Scrapping the election system or severely limiting constitutionally protected free speech would undermine Wisconsin’s justice system. We need an open, honest debate for Supreme Court elections, as ugly as that may get at times.

Responsible third parties give us some of the information we need to be informed—particularly in a world where the courts are making far-reaching decisions that affect our social and religious freedoms. Our elected legislators and governor need to remember that elections are the best way for Wisconsinites to stay involved in and informed about the workings of their justice system. Aside from the dishonest ads and mudslinging, in our opinion, this Supreme Court race was a triumph for the democratic system in Wisconsin.

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