Gavel Grab

An outspoken USA Today editorial, citing data compiled by Justice at Stake, harshly condemns a new kind of judicial election politics that “corrupts the neutrality of courts.”

The editorial is entitled, “Judicial elections threaten justice: Do you want judges to answer to the law, or to campaign contributors and ideological groups?”

The editorial relies in part on a 2010 “New Politics of Judicial Elections” report by JAS, partner groups and legal expert James Sample. The report documented more than a doubling of fundraising by state supreme court candidates in the prior decade as partisans and interest groups sought to influence the courts.

“Worse yet,” the editorial laments, “sitting judges who do their jobs, ruling impartially in accordance with state and federal constitutions, now face ouster at the hands of partisans who find such bedrock principles inconvenient.”

Referring to conservative-led campaigns this year to oust justices in Florida and Iowa, where the jurists face retention (yes-or-no) elections as part of merit selection systems, the editorial states:

“The political rot has spread so far that even judges appointed by merit selection are vulnerable. … [Retention elections] worked when judges were ousted only for malfeasance. But now their impartial constitutional judgments are subjected to political litmus tests.”

Read more

A study group led by Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, who is retiring, will begin examining this month possible reforms in the way judges are chosen for the state’s two highest courts.

In a proposal for the work group in 2011, Chief Justice De Muniz wrote, “Nationally, the increasing politicization of state judicial elections puts at risk judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the impartiality of judicial decisions. More recent judicial election campaigns in Oregon have exemplified the growing trend for judicial elections to become more and more affected by partisan politics.”

According to a column in The Oregonian by Susan Nielsen, reform efforts in Oregon have not gotten traction in the past decades, but “[u]gly battles in Iowa and other states, combined with an explosion in campaign spending, have changed the game.” Voters removed three state Supreme Court justices in Iowa in 2010, in retaliation for a court ruling that permitted same-sex marriages.

One reform suggestion that has been floated is for Oregon to move to what is known as The Missouri Plan, for a proven appointment-and-retention system of judicial elections there.

On a web site for the study group, reading materials for the first meeting included a report co-authored by Justice at Stake and partner groups entitled “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-10.” The report found that independent expenditures by special interest groups accounted for nearly 30 percent of the money spent on state judicial elections during the two-year period, far higher than four years earlier (see Gavel Grab).

In North Carolina, meanwhile, a WFAE radio report explained how judicial elections work in the Tarheel State and questions raised about the process.

A Birmingham News editorial is calling for an end to partisan judicial elections in Alabama.

Citing data from the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-2010, a report co-authored by JAS, the editorial argues that despite the millions spent by judicial candidates in Alabama, voters know woefully little about the candidates.

The editorial comes on the heels of an article by Eric Velasco for the Birmingham News on the challenges voters face in making informed decisions about judicial candidates.

“Voters are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to electing judges… It really is an exercise in blindfolded democracy” Charles Hall, JAS communications director told Velasco. Hall’s notion of blindfolded democracy was also cited as a source of concern in the editorial.

While supporting an end to elections for judges, the editorial urges at the very least the elimination of partisan affiliations for judicial candidates.

A Birmingham News editorial is calling for an end to partisan judicial elections in Alabama.

Citing data from the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-2010, a report co-authored by JAS, the editorial argues that despite the millions spent by judicial candidates in Alabama, voters know woefully little about the candidates.

The editorial comes on the heels of an article by Eric Velasco for the Birmingham News on the challenges voters face in making informed decisions about judicial candidates.

“Voters are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to electing judges… It really is an exercise in blindfolded democracy” Charles Hall, JAS communications director told Velasco. Hall’s notion of blindfolded democracy was also cited as a source of concern in the editorial.

While supporting an end to elections for judges, the editorial urges at the very least the elimination of partisan affiliations for judicial candidates.

As Oregon readies for the rare direct election of two state Supreme Court justices next year, there is scrutiny of the state’s judicial selection process and a call for looking at a merit-based appointment system.

According to a (Salem) Statesman-Journal column by Peter Wong, two retirements will result in direct election for two seats next year. After that, for the first time in nearly a century, a majority of the court will be made up of justices directly elected by voters.

Democratic state Rep. Chris Garrett recently wrote, “It is time to ask whether our system of electing judges is really a healthy one,” Wong notes, and he concurs: “Garrett has a point.”

Wong cites a $1.4 million election contest for an opening in 2006, and soaring election costs nationwide during the past decade as reported by Justice at Stake and partner groups.

Garrett detailed his ideas in a recent OregonLive.com column entitled, “Campaign money and influence: It’s time for Oregon to reform judicial selections.”

“Oregon has no rules limiting the dollar amounts that can be contributed in state elections,” Garrett explained. “Thus, unless we make changes to our system of selecting judges, we are at risk of joining other states that are seeing a flood of special interest money into judicial elections.” Read more

A Michigan newspaper is spotlighting a lack of transparency in that state’s judicial elections, citing a recent Justice at Stake report about special-interest spending and joining numerous other newspapers calling for reform.

“Judicial campaigns increasingly are becoming the target of special interests, and nowhere is the trend more evident than in Michigan,” says the Battle Creek Enquirer editorial, citing the “New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-10” report co-authored by JAS. Michigan had the most expensive high court elections in the last election cycle.

“The most disturbing aspect of the infusion of big bucks into races for state supreme court, appellate court and other judgeships is the lack of transparency about who is providing the money – and what they expect for their investment,” the editorial continues.

The increasing influence of political parties and outside interest groups in judicial elections, warns the editorial, “has the potential to undermine our system of checks and balances between the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.”

In addition to seeking disclosure of who is behind the special interest spending, it continues, “perhaps more states should consider the federal model of appointing judges, rather than electing them.” The recent report, the editorial says, “provides evidence of why it might be a wise choice for more states to consider.”

To learn about other editorials calling for reform in the wake of the “New Politics” report, see Gavel Grab.

The big-spending special interest groups that pumped money so heavily into recent judicial elections wielded an outsized influence, according to an expert analyst.

Adam Skaggs, senior counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice, discussed the increasing influence of money in judicial elections when he appeared on WNYC Radio’s Leonard Lopate show. The Brennan Center co-authored with Justice at Stake and the National Institute on Money in State Politics a report called “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-10.”

Just 10 groups accounted for 40 percent of all spending during the past election cycle on state high court races, and they included national special interest groups and political parties, according to the report. “That’s a tremendous influence that a very small number of interested parties have on these races,” Skaggs said.

In the face of these spending trends, judicial candidates signal they intend to be a reliable conservative vote on a court, or a liberal vote, and the likelihood of getting more moderate justices declines, Skaggs added. Read more

A flood of special-interest money in judicial elections and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling threaten to undermine the vital role of an independent judiciary in America, a Public Citizen blog warns.

The Citizen Vox blog commentary by Sean Siperstein focuses on findings in Justice at Stake’s “New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-10,” and the commentary sums up the report this way:

“[I]n states where the judiciary is subject to popular election or to ‘retention’ votes, a flood of special-interest money has increasingly politicized what the Framers envisioned as our least political branch of government.”

The judiciary “so often serves as a critical backstop on behalf of the Constitution and the law,” and thus its politicization poses a grave threat, Siperstein contends:

“Judges are subject to the same troubling leverage as members of the other two branches of government under the post-Citizens-United regime. Read more

It’s official: Justice at Stake’s “New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-10” isn’t just for fair-courts followers, law professors, judges and policy wonks.

The recently released JAS report made a splash in trend-conscious New York Magazine’s “Approval Matrix” for the week of Nov. 14. If you don’t know what that is, the magazine defines it as “Our deliberately oversimplified guide to who falls where on our taste hierarchies.”

On the matrix, “New Politics” rises to near the top of the chart for “high-brow.” For the subject matter it spotlights —  skyrocketing special-interest spending on judicial elections — the report ranks high on the “despicable” side of the chart.

The magazine calls it “a new report [that] documents the disturbing and rarely discussed effects of special-interest money on judicial elections.” To learn how the report has played in other news media, see Gavel Grab. The report was co-authored by two JAS partner groups, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

The Washington Post dedicated an entire editorial, headlined “Buying and selling judges,” to decrying the fundamental problems that judicial elections pose for impartial courts. The editorial called for an end to judicial elections. It relied heavily on Justice at Stake’s latest “New Politics 2009-10” report.

Special-interest groups independently paid out almost one-third of the $38 million spent on state supreme court campaigns,  the editorial said in citing from the report. “For those who believe that judges should be bought, sold and marketed like any other product, the 2009-10 election cycle brought welcome developments,” it stated.

But for those who defend fair courts, the report documented “disturbing findings,” which “once more affirm the need to discard the election of judges.”  With just 10 outside groups accounting for nearly 40 percent of all the spending during the election cycle, “the incursion and influence of special interests grew,” it said.

In addition, retention (up-or-down) elections were no longer protected from “the most pernicious political elements,” the editorial pointed out. Three judges were swept off the Iowa Supreme Court over a controversial ruling that permitted same-sex marriages. Almost $5 million was spent on retention elections in the last election cycle, compared to $2.2 million raised by candidates in all retention elections between 2000 and 2009. The editorial concluded:

“The message was clear: Render decisions that rile the public and risk the loss of your seat. Read more