« Ind. Gov't. - More on: "IPS Board member says he will resign over felony" | Main | Law - "As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation" »

Monday, October 09, 2006

Courts - "Big Money and Special Interests Are Warping Judicial Elections"

"Big Money and Special Interests Are Warping Judicial Elections" is the headline to a Legal Times commentary today written by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court and Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the D.C.-based, nonpartisan Justice at Stake Campaign. It begins:

“That’s obscene,” said Justice Lloyd Karmeier of the Illinois Supreme Court on the night of his electoral victory, two years ago. “How can people have faith in the system?”

Karmeier was referring to the breathtaking amounts of money raised by candidates in the 2004 elections for his state’s high court. The candidates for one seat raised $9.3 million—more money than was raised in 18 of 34 U.S. Senate races that year.

Illinois was not alone. Eight other states broke fund-raising records in 2004. And this fall 16 states will hold elections to choose their supreme court justices.

Over the past decade a perfect storm of millions in campaign contributions, increasingly hardball TV ads, and bare-knuckled special interest demands has descended on a growing number of state supreme court campaigns. The new politics deters good lawyers from becoming judges and increases voter cynicism. In August the states’ Conference of Chief Justices voiced “grave concern” over the changing nature of judicial elections and called for meaningful reforms.

At stake is nothing less than the fairness, impartiality, and independence of courts in the 38 states that use elections, in some form or fashion, to select or retain their high court judges.

The commentary concludes:
In many states with judicial elections, legal and civic leaders are considering switching to some form of the “Missouri Plan” for nonpartisan judicial selection. Sixteen states already use some form of the plan: A judicial nominating commission screens candidates and recommends a short list of potential nominees for their high courts. Justices are appointed to a brief initial term by the governor. Thereafter they must stand for re-election in uncontested retention elections. [ILB - Indiana is one of these Missouri Plan states]

It’s instructive to note that special interest groups have recently tried to undo these merit-based selection systems. Clearly, they see contested elections as a better means for getting “their” judges on the bench.

The bottom line is that we can’t leave judicial elections to the partisans and politicians. It’s time for everyone—judges, lawyers, and civic leaders—to enter the national debate over our courts. Americans want and need judges who are accountable to the law and the Constitution, not to special interests.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 9, 2006 01:08 PM
Posted to Courts in general