« Environment - More EPA CWA violations at dairy farms reported | Main | Indiana Decisions - More on District 46 ballot dispute »

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Law - Running for Judge in Illinois

Indiana's high court judicial offices have not been elective since the Judicial Article of the Indiana Constitution was revised in 1970. In many other states, however, the justices are elected. Illinois is one. The Chicago Tribune reports today:

Hoping to influence how courts deal with the controversial issue of medical malpractice, heavyweight special interest groups are pouring so much money into the race for the southern Illinois seat on the state Supreme Court that it has become the most expensive in Illinois court history.

The high court now has five Democrats and two Republicans, so even if Republican Lloyd Karmeier defeats Democrat Gordon Maag this fall, the partisan power will not change hands.

But the race between the two judges has become a significant battle in the national fight over the state of the modern courts. This jurisdiction has drawn national attention from business interests because of the many class-action and asbestos lawsuits filed here in search of its famously friendly judges and jury pools.

Making the race especially relevant to local voters is the concern that physicians are fleeing the area because outsize medical malpractice judgments are driving up their insurance premiums.

Two southern Illinois hospitals have closed their obstetrical units this year because of the high cost of insuring staff obstetricians. Neurosurgeons have left, leaving the bottom third of the state with none. * * *

Business groups and doctors believe a Republican--any Republican--will do a better job of handling those matters, because the GOP in general is more supportive of measures like caps on non-economic damages in civil awards.

But Democrats say they are concerned about the problem too. And though they have opposed an outright cap on damages, top Democrats in the state legislature have led the discussions on solving the medical malpractice crisis in recent months. In those discussions, trial lawyers, a traditional Democratic constituency, have deadlocked with businesses, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, which are traditionally Republican.

In this Supreme Court race, it's impossible to find out exactly what the candidates themselves believe, because of rules and norms that prevent judges from weighing in on any cause that might come before them.

So advocates are telling the story for them.

A story Thursday in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported:
The Illinois State Bar Association on Thursday asked Judges Gordon Maag and Lloyd Karmeier, opponents in a bitter campaign for the state's Supreme Court, to pull ads it says distort the candidates' records and chip away at the public's trust in the judicial system. * * *

The campaign has attracted national attention because a new justice on the court could sway an upcoming appeal by Philip Morris of a multibillion-dollar verdict against the company and because the two candidates represent opposing sides in a raging debate over tort reform.

A comprehensive story from the National Law Journal reports:
On the eve of the 2004 judicial elections, special interest groups are flexing big muscles in state Supreme Court races, using both familiar and new tactics.

Remember the rancor and big bucks of the 2000 and 2002 judicial elections? They're back, and then some.

In several of the 15 states where 29 state Supreme Court judgeships are up for grabs on Nov. 2, key interest groups are arrayed against each other. Business, medical groups and Republicans are on one side; trial lawyers, unions and Democrats are on the other.

Among the judicial-election battleground states, Illinois and West Virginia offer the two most closely watched races for record-setting money and saturation advertising. In one race for Illinois Supreme Court, more than $5 million has been raised, smashing state and national records for a single state Supreme Court election. * * *

To those pots of money and political fervor, add the explosive impact of the landmark 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, which says judicial candidates can't be barred from announcing their views on issues.

Citing White, interest groups have been pressing candidates to answer questionnaires that seek to pin down would-be judges on controversial issues, ranging from abortion to taxes. Some candidates are answering, but many are declining, claiming state judicial rules still restrict them from taking positions.

See this October 20th ILB entry for background on this. The National Law Journal article continues with a very interesting discussion of the impact of White on the various states' judicial campaign rules.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 23, 2004 10:09 AM
Posted to General Law Related