Tuesday is Election Day. Again.

There are two statewide races, for the Supreme Court and for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

I wrote about the former race the day of the primary election. The reason you should vote for incumbent Pat Roggensack is that you are much more likely to get the correct result from Roggensack than from Ed Fallone.

Among other things, Fallone appears to have issues with the truth, as chronicled by Collin Roth:

In 2010, Heidi Fallone appeared in a television ad for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett. The ad attacks Scott Walker for a position on stem cell research and concludes:

“Scott Walker says he would ban stem cell research in Wisconsin. That’s right, ban it.”

There was only one issue with the ad. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s PolitiFact deemed Heidi Fallone’s statement to be completely false. …

Ed Fallone serves as the President of Wisconsin Stem Cell Now, a stem cell advocacy organization. When the opportunity presented itself to attack Scott Walker on the stem cell issue, Heidi Fallone jumped at the opportunity. And when the ad was deemed completely false, it was Ed Fallone who was forced to back track for the ads claims.

Quoted in the Associated Press, Ed Fallone said that “Walker’s statements that he opposes embryonic research but that adult research is just as promising make it hard to know exactly where he stands.” But not knowing where a candidate stands and willingly having your wife and fellow Board member participate in an ad that charged Walker with wanting to “ban stem cell research” is very different.

Rick Esenberg adds this observation:

Supreme Court candidate Ed Fallone’s recent – and only – ad states that Judge Roggensack “refused” to hold Justice David Prosser accountable for his altercation with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. The statement is combined with text suggesting that Roggensack declined to do so because she and Prosser are “allies.”

This is an extremely unfair attack. Roggensack recused herself because she was a witness to the incident in question. In doing so, she followed the traditional rule that a person cannot be a judge and witness in the same case. …

The same ad claims – through a combination of voiceover and text – that what Fallone has dubbed the “Roggensack rule” is “legalized bribery.” In fact, Roggensack supported a rule that says that a legal campaign contribution or independent expenditure would not – by itself – require recusal. A judge remains free to recuse if she thinks that a particular contribution or expenditure has undermined her independence or created an unacceptable appearance of bias. This is consistent with longstanding practice on the court. …

Ed Fallone is, of course, free to disagree. He may prefer a rule that automatically calls for recusal whenever someone potentially interested in the outcome of a case – a party or a lawyer or a group that prefers the law to move in a certain direction – makes a contribution or spends money. But to call these things “bribery” reflects a lack of the care and precision we expect from judges. A contribution – without more – is not bribery as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the legal concept of bribery knows. …

But here’s the sticky part. Is candidate Fallone willing to live by the rules that he would impose on others? For example, he has received substantial support from labor unions and others with a vested interest in invalidating Act 10. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that the attack ad he is now running could not have been produced or put on the air without that support.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Yet Fallone has not – as far as I know – refused to say that he will recuse himself from any case involving Act 10. If substantial campaign contributions or expenditures constitute legalized “bribery,” he ought to be willing to do so.

I was lukewarm on the Superintendent of Public Instruction race. I am loath to vote for someone as deeply embedded in the education establishment as Tony Evers is. I also am loath to vote for Evers given that he clearly doesn’t grasp that, based on the 2010 and 2012 elections, Wisconsin voters demand more accountability, more choice for their children, and more cost-effective public education.

I was not, however, going to vote for Evers’ opponent, Don Pridemore, until I read this:

Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Erin), candidate for State Superintendent of Schools, on Thursday vowed to eliminate the Department of Public Instruction’s policy concerning allowable mascots.

“Under my leadership, DPI will not force policy onto the school districts where one bureaucrat has sole power to determine the fate of a school mascot,” Pridemore said. “This policy does not consider community standards, traditions or cost. Having one person to make a decision does not allow for due process or a public hearing. In my opinion it is unconstitutional and a great example of a bureaucracy that’s out of control.”

Pridemore thus earned my vote. In addition to being an example of misplaced outrage (schools choose mascots based on their positive attributes — in the case of Indian nicknames, strength, endurance and courage), the controversy over, around here, the Chieftains, Braves, Flying Arrows and others is an ideal example of mandates from afar egged on by the professionally aggrieved. (No, I do not care one bit about the feelings of those who complain about Indian mascots, anymore than Stoughton cared about my feelings when the Vikings nickname was adopted.)

Indian nicknames are not the biggest issue of this state. Evers, however, is an excellent example of the Tyranny of the Expert that infests state government. DPI is, not surprisingly, a captive of teacher unions, as demonstrated by its prevailing ethos: (1) Give us more money, and (2) leave us alone. We would not have a statewide school report card were it not for the Legislature’s actually insisting upon accountability in return for the billions of dollars the state sends every year to public schools.

The only people whose opinions should count in the schools are parents and taxpayers. Evers represents neither.