Gavel Grab

BULLETIN: The Senate Finance Committee stripped fees on court filings and lawyers as a major funding source for   the proposed public financing  of state Supreme Court elections, then sent the measure to the full Senate, according to the Associated Press.

The main funding source in the amended bill would be a $1 million transfer from a state administrative account. Earlier, an op-ed in a state capital newspaper resoundingly endorsed the pilot public financing project for state Supreme Court elections in 2012.

Enacting public financing of state Supreme Court elections in West Virginia would “declare loudly that…courts belong to all our citizens, not just to a few campaign spenders with deep pockets,” asserts the op-ed in the  Charleston Gazette.

State senators this week were weighing  a House-passed bill for a pilot program of public financing. The op-ed by Carol Warren, coordinator of West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections, and Julie Archer, project manager for WV Citizen Action Group, advocates passage of the bill to “free state Supreme Court candidates from having to raise money from litigants.”

In recent days, some senators have questioned whether it is right in a recession-wracked economy to raise certain court fees to help fund the pilot program. Warren and Archer address that question and respond that the cost of inaction is “continued public doubts about the courts.”

As for evidence of public concern, the commentary cites poll results made public this week by the Justice at Stake Campaign and Committee for Economic Development. It showed strong support among West Virginia voters for public financing of state Supreme Court elections (see earlier Gavel Grab post or the groups’ joint press release):

“With 78 percent of West Virginians already believing that campaign cash influences courtroom decisions, refusing to shield courts is a false economy. The cost of ignoring the problem will only grow. The time for lawmakers to act is now.”

The op-ed also mentions West Virginia’s recent history that has placed it in the center of debate over judicial reform. The state became a national poster child for the dangers of special-interest money in court elections in a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can read about the case, Caperton v. Massey, in Gavel Grab or Justice at Stake’s resource page on the ruling.