U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Judicial Reform in Wisconsin - Some More Lessons for Reformers (From Court Reform in Seven States, P 87-103, 1980, Lee Powell, ed. - See NCJ-74456)

NCJ Number
74460
Author(s)
R J Martineau
Date Published
1980
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Recent court reform activity in the State of Wisconsin is described in this paper in the National Center for State Courts' collection of narratives for seven States; reform history, participants, steps toward judicial merit selection, and reasons for success are emphasized.
Abstract
The year 1978 saw a culmination of a judicial reform effort begun 10 years earlier within the State. During 1978, a revision of the judicial article of the State constitution became effective, statutes and court rules implementing the constitutional amendment were adopted, and the first tentative steps toward judicial merit selection were taken. During the 1950's and 1960's, the principal proponent of judicial reform was the Wisconsin Judicial Council, a statutory agency. By 1975, efforts by a Citizens' Study Committee on Judicial Organization, a group created by executive order for the purpose of making recommendations concerning the judicial system, resulted in introduction of a newly drafted constitutional amendment in the legislature. The amendment called for the creation of a new intermediate appellate court, State financing of the judicial system, and a single-level trial court. Despite setbacks for reform advocates, such as the 1976 death of Chief Justice Wilkie, a central figure in the movement, the reform campaign culminated in the 1977 adoption of a judicial reform amendment. Wisconsin now has a judicial system that conforms in large measure with the American Bar Association's standards of judicial administration. The only major deficiencies are the lack of a judicial merit selection plan and the continued local funding for the court system. This major judicial reform was accomplished through the cooperative efforts of several chief justices, governors, legislators, and a small group of private citizens.