Gavel Grab

While Citizens United has drawn its fair share of deserved criticism, it cannot be held responsible for the two most “outrageous aspects of the 2012 campaign”: super PACs and secret donors, writes Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter in a Washington Post op-ed. The Campaign Legal Center is a JAS partner group.

The Supreme Court, Potter writes, promised full, speedy disclosure of funding sources for election ads and “wholly” independent unlimited campaign expenditures. This year’s election saw neither of these, but it wasn’t the court’s fault: According to Potter, the fault belongs to the Federal Election Commission.

Over the past decade, the “permissive regulations” implemented by the FEC’s have allowed candidates, parties and political action committees to work in close connection, turning “the Supreme Court’s promise of transparency into a joke,” writes Potter. Read more

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• Bill Moyers and Michael Winship emphasized the danger corporate spending in judicial elections poses to a fair and impartial justice system in an op-ed at Consortium News. The op-ed, called “Buying ‘Justice,’” ties in with the recent airing of “Justice, Not Politics” on Moyers and Company.  
• While both Montana Supreme Court candidates Ed Sheehy and Laurie McKinnon stress the importance of judicial impartiality, they have slightly different views on how to best demonstrate it, says a Montana Public Radio News article.
• New Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Wilhelmina Wright became the 90th justice and the first black woman to serve on the state’s highest court when she was sworn in to the bench today, according to an Associated Press article.
• The Supreme Court upheld today an Ohio appeals court ruling that will allow local election officials to choose whether or not to allow early voting, according to a New York Times article.

Veteran newsman and commentator Bill Moyers has cast a national spotlight on groups spending millions of dollars to pressure judges to bend to partisan agendas in America.

In addition, his “Moyers and company” website, urging “Help Keep Our Courts Impartial,” prominently featured Justice at Stake for its mission to protect fair courts and for its resources. These included a JAS YouTube channel with judicial election ads and JAS website data about state judicial selection and also about momentous U.S. Supreme Court rulings affecting judicial elections spending.

On his weekend show, Moyers introduced his concerns this way:

“In case you haven’t noticed, something’s afoot with our judicial system. Across the country, large sums of money – much of it secret – are pouring into the races for high court judges. And in several states, partisan groups with funds from undisclosed sources are out to punish justices for rulings the partisans don’t like.”

Turning to a Republican and social conservative ouster drive mounted against retention of Justice David Wiggins in Iowa, Moyers continued:

“Iowa is often a bellwether state for national politics. So when out-of-state partisans and out-of-state money combine to try and take down and take apart a highly esteemed court in the heartland, you never know who’s next.” Read more

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• New York Surrogate Court Judge Nora Anderson has been censured by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct for failing to report 2008 campaign contributions.  According to a New York Times article, the commission found that Anderson, who failed to report $250,000 from a former boss, harmed the “integrity of the judiciary” when she violated judicial ethics codes.
• Montana’s campaign donation limits have been temporarily reinstated by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to a Washington Post article. The court has requested and received the full reasoning for the decision from U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, who struck down the limits, and the limits have been left in place for the time being.
• A preview of this week’s Moyers & Company states that Bill Moyer will be taking a look at “what’s at stake when justices are at the mercy of partisan passions and money in politics.”

The Columbus Dispatch has reported that Ohio Supreme Court Justice Robert R. Cupp, a Republican candidate for re-election, denied violating any ethical standards when a party in a case before him donated to his campaign. The party is Ohio Edison, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., which gave to Justice Cupp’s campaign through its political-action committee.

Justice Cupp’s statements were in response to those of his Democratic opponent’s, retired Judge William M. O’Neill from the 11th District Court of Appeals. Judge O’Neill accused Justice Cupp as well as another judge, Justice Terrence O’Donnell, of violating the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judge O’Neill contended that  at least an appearance of impropriety occurred when Justice Cupp joined a unanimous decision in favor of Ohio Edison, after the PAC had donated $6,300 apiece to the judges’ re-election campaigns.

Read more

Two Ohio Supreme Court justices visited the town of Wooster last week to meet with area business and community leaders, and discuss the court’s history and configuration. Justice Robert Cupp and Justice Terrence O’Donnell are both up for re-election this year, and organized the event as a meet-and-greet with incumbent justices, writes the Wooster Daily Record.

Cupp said the high court is in a state of transition with the unexpected death of Chief Justice Thomas Moyer in 2010. Maureen O’Connor is currently serving as the court’s first female chief justice. In his statement, Cupp said the court’s actions affect everyone in the state, “even though some might not see it that way.”

Cupp also stated that when a judge acts in his or her proper role, “we create stability and predictability.” The judicial system should be stable, predictable and consistent, he said.

O’Donnell spoke of his time as a law clerk in 1971, and said the Ohio Supreme Court was held in great respect at the time. However, that reputation and image changed for a time, he said. O’Donnell said this was because court decisions were not being made “in conformity with what the legislation and the law was.”

The article wrote that Chief Justice Moyer, who served on the Justice at Stake board of directors, worked to restore public confidence in the justices and keep the Supreme Court out of the headlines. “We recognize a public trust needs to be part of what we do,” O’Donnell said. “The more we adhere to our oath, the more predictable the law becomes, the better attorneys can advise clients and the better clients can conduct their affairs.”

Despite growing criticism from some that the Supreme Court is out of touch with public attitudes, its rulings generally reflect mainstream political beliefs, according to an opinion column by Justin Moyer at the Washington Post.

While several of the justices have taken positions on cases that seem extreme, Moyer cites a recent study showing that the Supreme Court as a whole mirrors the views of the public. In his commentary, Moyer says that the justices at far ends of the ideological specturm ”cancel one another out.”

Although the Supreme Court has generally maintained a low profile, it seems headed for a challenge from Congress, according to a Des Moines Register editorial, which noted that tension between the two branches has intensified over a pending decision in the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Several senators have exchanged letters with Chief Justice John Roberts, urging “the court to adopt binding ethics rules.” Opponents and advocates of the bill have insisted that Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan recuse themselves from oral arguments.

According to the editorial, Roberts’ blunt dismissal of the request may increase sentiment that the court is out of touch with the public. The article writes that the court could avoid controversy by agreeing to discuss ethics questions. If the justices make the court’s “processes more transparent to the public,” they might remain in better favor with the people. By not disclosing important recusal information, the editorial says, the court could face an uphill battle with Congress in the future.

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• In a NM Politics article, Hans Voss, president-elect of the State Bar of New Mexico, rebuts state Representative Dennis Kintigh’s criticism of the courts, pointing to safeguards in New Mexico’s judicial elections as well as to the state Judicial Standards Commission’s checks on the judges as evidence that judges face accountability measures.
• Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann criticized three ousted Iowa judges for their ruling on gay marriage, saying “they need to act like judges” and not like “super legislators,” saying that the ruling did not reflect the will of Iowa voters, according to a Huffington Post article. She added that, if elected, she will only appoint judges with an original-intent, strict-construction view of the Constitution.
• On Friday, the Ohio Supreme Court rededicated the Front Street building in Columbus, Ohio as the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center after the recently deceased, former Ohio Supreme Court chief justice, according to The Republic. Chief Justice Moyer was a longtime member of the Justice at Stake board of directors.

The Ohio Judicial Center will be named in honor of the late Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who served the second-longest period as top state jurist in Ohio’s history. The state Supreme Court approved the new name for the Judicial Center.

Justice Moyer, according to a Columbus Dispatch article, “is credited with making Ohio’s court system more open and responsive to the public, and bringing greater professionalism, discipline and accountability to the practice of law.” Justice Moyer was a founding member of Justice at Stake’s board of directors.

A candidate for chief justice in Ohio has likened that court, with her opponent at the helm, to a “rudderless ship.”

“I believe that, at this point, the Ohio Supreme Court is akin to a rudderless ship without a leader, without direction, and post-Nov. 2 [Election Day] that will change,” Justice Maureen O’Connor told the editorial board of the Vindicator newspaper.

A Republican, Justice O’Connor is running against newly appointed Chief Justice Eric Brown, who recently was named by the governor to fill a vacancy  created by the death of then-Chief Justice Thomas Moyer.

When contacted by the newspaper, Justice Brown said, “I have been an effective leader on the court. … My style is very hands-on. I don’t lead by press conference. I work with others to come up with solutions to problems. Certainly, there’s a lot of talk this campaign season.” He is a Democrat.

Last month, the pair clashed in a meeting with the editorial board of the Columbus Dispatch. Justice Brown said his opponent should not have cast a vote in a decision lifting restraints on judicial candidate fundraising, because she is running for re-election. Justice O’Connor labeled Justice Brown a “middle-aged white male” and pointed out that if elected, she would be Ohio’s first female chief justice.

To learn more about the state Supreme Court elections in Ohio, check out Justice at Stake’s Ohio news page.