Gavel Grab

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• Massachusetts judges may accept free legal services in order to challenge charges of misconduct in court, the state Committee on Judicial Ethics ruled. The Boston Globe says this decision may eliminate an investigation of District Court Judge Raymond G. Dougan for accepting more than $85,000 of free legal services from a Boston law firm.
• On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in higher education, according to NPR. The justices have yet to hand down an opinion on a Texas affirmative action case they heard in October (see Gavel Grab).
• Gavel to Gavel states that North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has submitted a budget plan that includes no funding for the state’s public financing program for judicial elections. Gavel to Gavel is a newsletter from the National Center for State Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg, who was defeated in a 2011 state Supreme Court bid, said in a public appearance that only by removing cash from judicial elections can outside influence be removed from the courtroom.

Judge Kloppenburg advocated an end to state Supreme Court elections and she tentatively suggested support for a merit selection system combining a screening commission and judicial appointments, plus subsequent retention (up-or-down) elections, the Daily Union reported.

“At its best, the merit system works like public financing to focus on experience qualifications and character,” Judge Kloppenburg said.

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus made a mistake and likely broke the law when she failed to report thousands of votes in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this spring, but her conduct didn’t constitute a criminal violation, state investigators said, according to an Associated Press article.

• A blog post from the Womble Carlyle law firm discussed a recent lawsuit challenging a part of North Carolina’s law that provides public financing for judicial campaigns, and the post speculated about the lawsuit’s potential impact on elections in 2012.

• ABC News furnished a transcript of George Stephanopoulos’ interview with retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who recently has written a memoir entitled “Five Chiefs.”

• Federal District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin, Texas defended his controversial order that directed certain lawyers to go to a “kindergarten party” because he thought they had engaged in petty squabbling, according to a Wall Street Journal Law Blog post.

In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:

• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan discussed the friendly atmosphere that she has found at the nation’s highest court, and also her disagreement with the majority ruling in an Arizona public-financing case, at an Aspen Institute forum, the Aspen Times reported.

• Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson participated in a forum about improving the public’s understanding of the court system, according to a Wisconsin State Bar report. The State Bar’s Public Education Committee sponsored the event.

• GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced formation of a justice advisory committee for his campaign. It could play well among some voters in Iowa, where voters dumped three state Supreme Court justices over a controversial ruling on same-sex marriages, according to an Iowa Independent article.

What does the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, striking down a matching-funds mechanism in the state’s public campaign financing law, mean for elections in Arizona?

An Arizona Republic article interviewed three people involved with Arizona’s system for their analyses, and reached no conclusions. In a nutshell, the article said critics of public financing thought the ruling would lead to the demise of  Arizona’s Clean Elections system, while admirers thought the system could be reformed and endure.

A political campaign consultant, Constantin Querard, had helped conservative Republicans run for legislative office while taking advantage of Arizona’s public financing law. He remarked that he thought there was little future overall for the Clean Elections system. But he saw a potential for it in judicial elections. According to the article, “He suggests the public-finance model might be a nice fit for judicial elections, especially if voters can be persuaded to do away with merit selection for judges in Maricopa and Pima counties and go to direct election.”

Meanwhile a Los Angeles Times article was headlined, “Arizona conservatives scramble after campaign finance law’s defeat: The state’s Clean Elections Act had swept a surge of small-government Republicans into power.” Read more

Both sides in a case challenging Wisconsin’s law for the public financing of state Supreme Court elections have asked a federal appeals court to dismiss the case as moot.

Gov. Scott Walker recently signed into law a biennial budget for Wisconsin, and that law included the repeal of provisions of the Impartial Justice Act that were challenged in the legal case.

Before the governor signed the budget, Justice at Stake had submitted an amicus brief urging the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Wisconsin law (see Gavel Grab).

Attorneys at the law firm that drafted the JAS brief said Friday that both sides have moved the appeals court to toss out the case as moot. The parties in the case argue that the appeal is moot because there is no longer an active law for the Seventh Circuit to evaluate, the lawyers said.

The case is called Wisconsin Right to Life v. Brennan. Wisconsin Right to Life was seeking to strike down the “trigger supplemental funds” provision of the Impartial Justice Act, which grants additional money to publicly funded candidates when opponents spend above a certain limit. Read more

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has signed a two-year budget that includes eliminating funds for the public financing of state Supreme Court elections.

Justice at Stake and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently defended the public financing program in an op-ed published in Wisconsin (see Gavel Grab). The op-ed said:

“Rather than gut the state’s young public financing system for appellate court races, Wisconsin’s legislature must stand up and preserve one of the most powerful reforms available to help preserve courts that are fair, impartial and free of special-interest influence.”

Walker’s signing of the bill was reported by the Associated Press. The budget legislation represented one of multiple assaults on public financing, as it was signed one day before the Supreme Court struck down a provision of Arizona’s campaign public financing law (see Gavel Grab). Read more

Justice at Stake’s executive director, Bert Brandenburg, called the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett on Monday “disappointing, but not fatal for America’s courts.”

The Supreme Court struck down a key provision in Arizona’s public financing law on a 5-4 vote (see Gavel Grab). Brandenburg said in a JAS press release:

“Today’s ruling is disappointing, but not fatal for America’s courts. State judicial elections are drowning in special-interest spending. Properly crafted public financing laws are more critical than ever, so that judges do not have to dial for dollars from major donors who may appear before them in court.”

Brandenburg emphasized that while the high court voided an important funding mechanism in Arizona’s law, called “triggered matching funds” for participating candidates, it affirmed earlier rulings upholding the constitutionality of public financing itself.

In 39 states, judges face some type of election, and public financing has proven to be a powerful reform. Campaign spending in judicial elections exploded during the last decade, Justice at Stake said. Read more

Wisconsin’s legislature has completed work on a biennial budget, including elimination of public financing for state Supreme Court campaigns, and sent it to Gov. Scott Walker.

The legislature went further than the governor. He initially proposed to limit funding for the public financing plan to that sum raised by a voluntary income tax check-off, thereby forgoing the possibility of backup funding from the general fund, according to a Wisconsin State Bar article.

The legislature chose to eliminate the new public financing program completely.

“The State Bar’s Board of Governors has long supported public financing for supreme court campaigns using general purpose tax revenues as under the current program,” the Wisconsin State Bar article noted.

Justice at Stake and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign recently defended the public financing program in an op-ed published in Wisconsin (see Gavel Grab). The op-ed said:

“Rather than gut the state’s young public financing system for appellate court races, Wisconsin’s legislature must stand up and preserve one of the most powerful reforms available to help preserve courts that are fair, impartial and free of special-interest influence.”

Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice, a JAS partner, urged a federal appeals court on Friday to uphold Wisconsin’s law for public financing of state Supreme Court elections. Judges play a unique role in our governmental system, the groups said.

The two nonpartisan national reform groups said in separate amicus briefs that unlike other elected officials, judges have a duty under the Constitution’s 14th amendment to be impartial. Reforms to prevent the appearance of  judicial bias therefore represent a compelling government interest, they said.

“Judges are supposed to follow the law, not political pressure,” said Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director, in a press release. “Americans have a constitutional right to a fair day in court, and public financing of judicial elections helps achieve that.”

“Judicial elections are vastly different from other contests, which is why Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice Act should be upheld in full,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center. The Impartial Justice Act provides for public financing of state Supreme Court elections.

“Money in the judiciary can lead to bias and erode public trust in the courts,” Skaggs added. “By providing public financing for judicial candidates, we can ensure judges are accountable to the law, not big money backers.”

The briefs were filed with the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case called Wisconsin Right to Life v. Brennan. Read more