Gavel Grab

Group wary of justices, money link - The Columbus Dispatch
Article discussing the recently released Justice at Stake/Midwest Democracy Network’s report on Judicial Elections in the Great Lakes states.Read more…

Tags: Florida, Illinois, Judicial Elections Conduct, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, terrorism trials & the courts, Wisconsin

Opposing view: Restrain judicial activism - USA Today Blog
Writer Tony Perkins supports John McCain’s views on appointing judges to the Federal and Supreme court.Read more…

Tags: Federal Court Nominations, Judicial Campaign, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, Texas

Justice O’Connor brings experience, wisdom to Boston - Forth Worth Star-Telegram
Editorial criticizing Presidential Candidate John McCain’s speech on judges he would appoint.Read more…

Tags: Federal judicial nominations, Michigan, Same-Sex Marriage, terrorism trials & the courts, West Virginia

Today the Justice at Stake campaign is releasing its latest report, The New Politics of Judicial Elections in the Great Lakes States, 2000-2008. This report focuses on Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, how they have become judicial elections battlefields, and hopes for reform. We released the report in conjunction with the Midwest Democracy Network (http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/).

A press release can be found at http://www.justiceatstake.org/contentViewer.asp?breadcrumb=7,55,1064

You can access the report on Internet at http://www.justiceatstake.org/files/NPJEGreatLakes2000-2008.FINAL.pdf

Tags: Publication

By Bethany Foster, Brennan Center

As Bert Brandenburg noted earlier this week, the Fourth Circuit delivered some good news for public financing advocates last Thursday by unanimously upholding North Carolina’s system of public funding for judicial campaigns. This is a major victory for citizens concerned about fair and impartial courts.

The North Carolina decision is one of multiple recent developments on the public financing front. On the same day that the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, plaintiffs in Arizona filed an amended complaint against the matching funds provisions of that state’s public funding program for statewide and legislative races. The case is back in the District Court after going up to the Ninth Circuit and then getting remanded.

Finally, in late March, a federal district court judge dismissed the core challenges to Connecticut’s public financing law, ruling that the matching funds provided by that system do not violate the free speech rights of non-participating opponents and independent spenders.

The matching fund triggers are a crucial part of viable voluntary public financing systems. They help participating candidates, who are bound by spending limits, to keep from being drowned out by privately financed opposition. In the words of the Fourth Circuit, the matching fund system “furthers, not abridges, pertinent First Amendment values.”

The Fourth Circuit also recognized that the provisions of the system that were challenged by the plaintiffs “embody [the] effort to protect [the] vital interest in an independent judiciary.” In other words, a federal appellate court reputed to be among the most conservative in the land, emphatically concluded that public financing furthers the interest in fair and impartial courts. With that sentiment, we couldn’t agree more.

Bills to amend the constitution to implement merit selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts have been introduced in both houses of the state legislature. This is the first step in the lengthy constitutional amendment process. If the bills pass by the summer recess, they will need to pass again during the next legislative session (2009-2010). Following second passage, there will be a public referendum. Only if the people of Pennsylvania vote for merit selection can we change the way we select appellate judges.

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction hope that the people of Pennsylvania will get the chance to decide the best way to pick appellate court judges. Public confidence in the courts has been declining as contributions to judicial campaigns continue to rise. Studies repeatedly show that people care most about having qualified, fair and independent judges. Elections are not the best way to get such judges on the appellate courts.

Read more…

Tags: bills, constitutional amendment, merit selection, Pennsylvania

Far-right demands fealty on judicial nominees; McCain to acquiesce - The Carpetbagger Report
Post looking at what McCain was prepared to say this morning about Federal Judicial nominations, and what is his purpose.

Read more…

Tags: Diversity, Federal judicial nominees, U.S. Supreme Court

Justice O’Connor brings experience, wisdom to Boston - Boston Globe
Justice O’Connor’s day back in court as a visiting judge in Boston.

Read more…

Tags: North Carolina, Public Financing, Sandra Day O'Connor, terrorism trials & the courts

The future of a salary increase for federal judges (29 percent) appears in question as initial momentum slows. Legislation passed out of both the House (HR 3753) and Senate (S 1638) Judiciary Committees with broad support, including from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. (see his statement in the 2007 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary). At issue are the amendments added to the Senate bill in an attempt to promote judicial ethics. James Duff, executive director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), remains diligent, “We continue to work with the leadership to get this crucial legislation passed in this session.” The AO posts several resources regarding federal judicial pay, as does JAS partner, the American Bar Association.

Tags: Federal Courts, Judicial salary