« Ind. Courts - Judicial Center's Legislative Update #5 | Main | Law - More on: "Stalking called underreported, high-tech crime" »

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Courts - "Case May Alter Judge Elections Across Country "

The case of Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal, No. 08-22, which will be argued before the SCOTUS on March 3, and about which the ILB has posted many times before, is the subject of a story today by Adam Liptak of the NY Times. Some quotes:

The case, one of the most important of the term, has the potential to change the way judicial elections are conducted and the way cases are heard in the 39 states that elect at least some of their judges. In many states, campaigns for court seats these days rival in both expense and venom what goes on in, say, a governor’s race. Yet it is commonplace in American courtrooms for judges to hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have contributed to or spent money to support their campaigns. * * *

When the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in November, much of the legal establishment cheered. Here was an opportunity, bar associations and law professors said, to draw a line separating big money from judicial decision making.

But briefs from Massey and its supporters suggest that the case, Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal, No. 08-22, which will be argued on March 3, is more complicated than it first appears. * * *

Lawyers for Massey suggest that the case is a Trojan horse whose real intent is to do away with judicial elections because any spending in such elections is suspect. “Any impartiality concerns raised by campaign spending are inherent in the state’s decision to hold judicial elections,” James Bopp Jr. wrote in a brief supporting Massey [Appendix here] for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

The briefs on Massey’s side add that states should be allowed to run their legal systems as they see fit. It would be impossible, they say, to fashion a sensible rule to determine when contributions or independent expenditures should require recusal under the federal Constitution’s due process clause. The other side says it has no problem with elections or financial support. But in rare cases involving especially large amounts from the people involved, they say, judges should be required to disqualify themselves.

For more briefs, see the links at the end of this ILB entry from Jan. 9th.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 15, 2009 08:29 AM
Posted to Courts in general