« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues unauthorized practice decision against woman providing "immigration services" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts four today »

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Courts - Voters, activists put heat on judges: Interest groups, playing to voter resentment, mount TV attack ads; more on Pennsylvania judges

"Voters, activists put heat on judges: Interest groups, playing to voter resentment, mount TV attack ads" is the headline to this lengthy story published 12/5/05 in the Chicago Tribune. Some quotes:

In South Dakota, tens of thousands of angry voters signed petitions for a ballot proposal informally known as "J.A.I.L. 4 Judges," enabling ordinary citizens to haul judges into court.

In Pennsylvania, where voters never had rejected a state Supreme Court incumbent seeking re-election, a justice was tossed from office last month because people were furious about a pay raise for state officials, including judges.

And in Wisconsin, a state Supreme Court justice whose opinions angered business interests faces the possibility of a $2 million campaign against his re-election next spring, organized by an interest group based in Washington, D.C.

Far beyond the public rough-and-tumble politics attached to U.S. Supreme Court nominations, formerly obscure and second-tier elections for seats on state courts have become battlegrounds of culture wars, tort reform and other business cost issues, as well as contests that give voters the opportunity to act on popular cynicism and resentment toward the judiciary.

At the same time, judges are under increasing partisan attack for any number of reasons--gay-rights rulings, decisions regarding prayer and, early this year, failure to intercede in the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died after her feeding tube was removed by court order. Criticism from many conservatives, including President Bush, about so-called activist judges who legislate from the bench has become part of the political vernacular and the public psyche.

While interest groups--business, labor, trial lawyers--used to devote their efforts and money exclusively to legislatures and executive offices, now they are fine-tuning their strategies and going after judges, the final arbiters of difficult and emotional issues such as tort liability, abortion and criminal justice.

The ILB has had a number of entires on the North Dakota and Pennsylvania issues, and plus entries and a Res Gestae article on the effort during the last session to make Indiana appellate judges and justices subject to Indiana Senate confirmation and review. All these postings may be located via the category "Indiana Courts" in the right column.

And there is another story today, via the Philadelphia Inquirer, on the Pennsylvania retention vote, which turned on a "midnight pay raise" passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that included raises for the judges, and resulted in one Suprmee Court justice being turned out of office last month via the 10-year "yes or no" retention ballot. Recall that after viewing the election results, the Pennsylvania General Assembly retreated last month and repealed the pay raise. There was speculation that a judge might sue -- see this ILB entry for background. Sure enough, the headline of today's story is "Judge files suit to restore pay hikes." Quotes:

At the time of the repeal vote last month, many lawmakers said lawsuits were inevitable given the question over the legislature's ability to control judges' salaries. Some lawmakers predicted that after the extraordinary Election Day defeat of Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro, judges would be loath to challenge the repeal.

The lawsuit says the bill subjects the judiciary to the "whims of the legislature," thereby compromising the constitution. The "act was not undertaken in the best interests of Pennsylvania, but rather solely for the internal concerns and paranoia of the legislature." * * *

The legislature, stung by voter response, was poised to repeal its action but was stalled for weeks over the question of whether lawmakers have the power to cut judges' salaries. But lawmakers argued they did have the power if they cut salaries for all affected state workers at once. The final bill signed by Rendell on Nov. 16 rolled back salaries for lawmakers, members of the executive branch and judges to pre-July 7 levels.

"We hope the Supreme Court looks at the intent of the legislation which was very clear to repeal in its entirety for everyone," said Sen. Sean Logan (D., Allegheny), sponsor of the pay raise repeal amendment in the Senate. "We didn't pick on one branch."

But Sheppard's suit argues that the legislature, for the first time, was acting in accordance with the constitution when it approved raises for judges that were based on salaries of the federal judiciary.

Reacting to the suit, Drew Crompton, chief counsel for Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer (R., Blair), said: "Anytime a judge questions the motives of the legislature he should have something to go on. It was not capricious. The bill was deliberated over for three weeks because of the constitutional issues and to ensure it would apply to all three branches."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 6, 2005 12:24 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts