Gavel Grab

The impact on state courts has come into sharper focus as a key result of this week’s Citizens United ruling.

A very interesting story in today’s New York Times examines the effect of Citizens United on state laws regulating campaign spending by corporation treasuries. It concludes with a look at state judicial elections, quoting election law expert Rick Hasen and citing fund-raising data from Justice at Stake.

And a news release issued Friday by Justice at Stake focuses on state courts. In the release, titled “Citizens United Called Grave Threat for America’s Courts,” Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, said:

“Citizens United has raised the threat facing elected courts to an unprecedented level. But it hasn’t ruled out meaningful campaign reforms to protect our courts. Indeed, it has made common-sense election reforms more urgent than ever.”

The effect of unfettered corporate spending on state court elections, coming less than a year after the Caperton v. Massey ruling, was so signficant that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote a lengthy, often impassioned dissent, both addressed it.

As noted in Justice at Stake’s initial statement, Stevens said the ruling “unleashes the floodgates” to special-interest spending in court elections, citing Justice at Stake in laying out his concerns.

To catch up on the flood of Citizens United coverage, there is a host of sources

• Running coverage in Gavel Grab.
• www.electionlawblog.com.
• A special TV-radio round-up at www.justiceatstake.org.
• The Supreme Court opinion.
• A Citizens United fact sheet, which explains the lead-up to this week’s ruling.
• Justice at Stake’s post-ruling statement and Justice at Stake’s press release on court impacts.