The record-breaking, $16.5 million Pennsylvania Supreme Court election this month is no aberration, Scott Greytak of Justice at Stake writes for the blog of The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
“Its sky-high spending, ad war among special interests, and dominance by candidates who spent the most all fit into a pattern. This grim picture threatens the evenhanded justice that our Constitution promises, and raises troubling questions about whether justice is indeed for sale,” writes Greytak.
He then compares what happened in Pennsylvania with themes of the previous election cycle as documented in Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14. Greytak, JAS policy counsel and research analyst, was lead author of the report, coauthored with The Brennan Center for Justice and National Institute on Money in State Politics. Read more
A recent report documenting surging special interest spending on judicial elections, coauthored by Justice at Stake, continues to get news media coverage in high-spending states — including in less populated areas.
In North Carolina, a commentary by Patrick Gannon of the Capitol Press Association, about what Gannon called the corrupting influence of money on judicial races, was published in The Greenville Daily Reflector and The Salisbury Post.
Gannon sums up what Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14 identifies as trends in the big-spending 2014 North Carolina Supreme Court election, and he comes away worried. Also coauthoring the report were The Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Read more
Tags: North Carolina
The Senate has left Washington for its Thanksgiving break, and its Republican-steered delay in acting to confirm judicial and executive branch nominees “makes it hard for the courts and the federal government to work efficiently,” Jonathan Bernstein says in a Bloomberg View essay.
With only 10 judges confirmed this year and with 66 judicial vacancies, the foot-dragging of Senate on these nominations has not been equaled since the Eisenhower administration, he writes. It’s not just a variation of partisan maneuvering. “It’s new, it’s a big deal, and it’s terrible,” he contends.
U.S. News & World Report, meanwhile, had an article headlined, “Public Service Nominees Become Pawns in Political Squabbles.”
A secretive nonprofit group called the Wellspring Committee gave more than $6.6 million last year to the Judicial Crisis Network, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, while citing Justice at Stake about JCN’s efforts to influence state judicial elections.
“The Judicial Crisis Network gave $528,000 to organizations that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on judicial elections in Wisconsin and Tennessee,” according to Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14, coauthored by JAS and two partner organizations.
The Center for Responsive Politics has previously written about the Wellspring Committee and funds from it that were channeled into judicial election spending, and you can learn more from Gavel Grab. Under federal tax law, the Wellspring Committee is not required to disclose its own donors.
An Erie Times-News editorial, discussing a proposal to raise the mandatory retirement ages of Pennsylvania judges (see Gavel Grab), casts its vote for another switch: for the merit-based selection of top state jurists.
“The truly wise step to take,” the editorial says, “would be for lawmakers to approve legislation supported by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts to create a merit system for appointing judges to the Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme courts.” The editorial also notes the support of PMC, a Justice at Stake partner organization, for the proposed constitutional amendment to raise judges’ retirement age.
“Those who want to raise the retirement age in Pennsylvania should step up for merit selection as well to enlist support from voters on the referendum,” the editorial concludes. Read more
In these other dispatches about fair and impartial courts:
- A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a Wisconsin law saying that abortion providers must obtain admitting privileges from nearby hospitals, the Associated Press reported. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a challenge to a similar law from Texas.
- Gavel to Gavel, a publication of the National Center for State Courts, was named one of the ABA Journal’s top 100 law blogs for the four year in a row. The center is a Justice at Stake partner group.
- A Washington Post article about the U.S. Chief Justice was headlined, “Roberts recalls another chief justice and reveals a little about himself.”
Even as three new justices prepare to take seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the fact that court is tarnished by scandal and viewed dimly in some circles remains a theme of news media attention.
“Pennsylvania’s judicial system has become its own punchline,” said a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial as it called for an outside, independent investigation of possible misconduct by sitting Justice Michael Eakin, the target of allegations about porn emails. “Eakin’s Arrogance,” a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial scolded about the justice’s urging a new agent for the investigation (see Gavel Grab).
Other coverage included, The Associated Press, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 3 justices-elect appraise its battered image, need for changes”; PennLive.com, “Pa. Supreme Court’s tarnished rep tough on sole female justice”; The Times-Tribune, “Stevens wrapping up term on Supreme Court”; and a Times-Tribune commentary about a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges, “You’ll be judge … of age.” Read more
Almost 75 percent of North Carolinians responding to an Elon University poll said state judges’ decisions are influenced by the fact they must run for election.
In addition, 76 percent of those polled said political parties influence judges’ decisions and 76 percent said they disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that the courts are “free from political influences.”
“These results may reflect the fact that North Carolina had the nation’s second-highest level of campaign spending in judicial elections in 2014,” said Assistant Professor Jason Husser, assistant director of the Elon University Poll. “Our state trails only Michigan in how much money all candidates spent in seeking seats on the bench.” Read more
Natalie E. Hudson has taken the oath of office to serve on the Minnesota Supreme Court, where the former prosecutor and law dean becomes the second African American woman justice in the court’s history.
“How we treat those on the margins of society, those with no lobbying group, says volumes about our character and values as a judicial system,” Hudson said, according to the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune.
Hudson most recently served on the state’s appellate court. She was named to the high court by Gov. Mark Dayton.
The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments has given Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey a list of seven finalists for an open seat on the state Supreme Court, more than the minimum of three that is required.
Ducey is a Republican. Four of the seven are Republicans. Under the state’s law for merit selection of judges, no more than two-thirds of the finalists suggested by the panel may be from one party. Ducey had asked for the commission to send him as many names as possible, according to the Arizona Daily Sun.
The recommended candidates are Court of Appeals Judges Kent Cattani, Andrew Gould, Samuel Thumma, and Lawrence Winthrop, all Republicans; attorney Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute, an independent; and Court of Appeals Judges Michael Brown and Maurice Portley, who are Democrats. The commission did not forward the names of two other candidates whom it had interviewed.