A panel of three state appeals judges recently recommended that State Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler be reprimanded by her colleagues on the high court for her failure to recuse herself in several cases when she was a Washington County circuit judge.

This is the most appropriate punishment for Ms. Ziegler, despite the option of more severe sanctions the panel could have recommended � namely, a suspension or outright removal from her position on the court. While concluding that Ms. Ziegler should have known not to hear the cases in question (which involved West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband serves as a director), the panel found she acted �without moral culpability� and said her rulings in the cases did not benefit herself or her family. The panel also said she made the correct legal rulings in each of the cases and noted that none of the parties involved sought to appeal her decisions.

The appeals judges anticipated their recommendation would likely do little to quell the clamor from some quarters for a harsher punishment. Indeed, right on cue, The Capital Times has maintained its dogged demand that anything less than Ms. Ziegler�s removal from the court is a severe injustice to the state of Wisconsin.

To be sure, we agree that Ms. Ziegler erred by not recusing herself in the West Bend Savings Bank cases. We predicated our endorsement of Ms. Ziegler�s opponent, Madison attorney Linda Clifford, in last year�s election on this fact, noting that �any prudent judge would do his or her best to avoid even the slightest appearance of impropriety.� It is vital for the public to have confidence in the integrity of our courts, and Ms. Ziegler�s actions certainly left room for doubt on this issue.

But in this case, justice is hardly served by removing a judge just elected to the Supreme Court by the people of Wisconsin. The controversy surrounding Ms. Ziegler was well-known to voters at the time of her election � media reports of the controversy were widespread, and Ms. Clifford ran numerous campaign ads drawing attention to Ms. Ziegler�s breach of judicial ethics. Despite all of this, voters elected Ms. Ziegler by a wide margin. It was their intention that Ms. Ziegler serve on the state high court, and their will should be honored.

It must also be noted that a reprimand is still a form of discipline. It is a knock on Ms. Ziegler�s professional reputation � something of no small consequence for a public official.

The Supreme Court should accept the panel�s recommendation. It is time to put this controversy to rest.