Archive for the 'JAS Partner News' Category
Total spending in the race for three seats on the Michigan Supreme Court in 2014 reached $10.4 million, including $4.66 million in “dark money” sponsored TV ads supporting the Republican nominees, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network said in a report on Wednesday.
The report documented heavy dark money expenditures in state Supreme Court campaigns since 2000, and it said “The undisclosed spending is a direct threat to impartial justice.” When big political donors are anonymous, it said, “We can’t know when ethical, even legal, lines have been crossed. Transparency is inoculation against corruption. Dark money conceals corruption.” The report also examined campaigns for other offices, including state attorney general.
MCFN relied on semi-annual reports by Justice at Stake and partner groups in stating that Michigan saw the most expensive Supreme Court elections in 2010 and 2012, and it predicted that Michigan would hold the same rank when a report is completed on 2014. In tracing dark money in elections for seats on the Michigan high court, it said: Read more
At least two Pennsylvania editorial boards leapt to applaud a newly proposed constitutional amendment to jettison elections of appellate judges and adopt an appointive, merit selection system (see Gavel Grab).
The proposal “will eliminate an electoral system that has become a big money game that favors special interests,” declared the Philadelphia Daily News. “It assures that only qualified candidates get on the list sent to the governor. It will end the ‘Who the heck are these people?’ reaction of voters who see the names on the ballot.”
The Patriot News stated, “It would ensure qualified candidates serve on our appellate courts. It would include the say of private citizens, members of the Legislature, the governor and, ultimately, all Pennsylvanians. It would eliminate the unseemly fundraising and campaigning that judicial candidates now have to endure. It would not eliminate the voice of the voter in determining who serves on the courts. It is the best plan we’ve heard to address this important topic.” Read more
A leading Pennsylvania House Republican said he supports a newly introduced bill to switch from elections to merit-based appointment of appellate judges (see Gavel Grab) and wants to see the full state House vote on it.
But there are challenges to overcome first in order to get the bill out of committee, state Rep. Ron Marsico, House Judiciary Committee chairman, told the Associated Press. The AP’s article quoted Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization, as saying about the legislation, “It’s a bipartisan, nonpartisan, issue for those who really care about the justice system.” Read more
Justice at Stake is urging the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold rules from the Arizona Code of Judicial Ethics limiting partisan political activity by sitting judges and judicial candidates.
An amicus brief was submitted in support of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct on behalf of Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Arizona Judges’ Association, The Campaign Legal Center, Inc., and Lambda Legal. All but the Arizona Judges’ Association are JAS partner organizations.
“The 9th Circuit will be the first federal court to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, which made clear that states can adopt carefully-designed rules of judicial conduct to preserve public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” Read more
Bert Brandenburg, Justice at Stake’s executive director since 2004, will leave JAS in mid-August to become president of Appleseed, a national network of public interest law centers, the JAS Board of Directors announced on Friday. Liz Seaton, an attorney and JAS’s deputy executive director, will become the JAS interim executive director later this summer.
“It is with tremendous reluctance and gratitude for Bert’s many years of service that the Board has accepted his resignation,” said JAS Board Chair Mark Harrison. “Bert has been with Justice at Stake since its inception, and built the strong foundation on which the organization stands today and on which Justice at Stake can continue to fight effectively to preserve fair and impartial courts. As executive director, he established Justice at Stake as the national leader in the fair courts field. While we will miss him, his leadership of Appleseed will strengthen its partnership with JAS and add vigor to the fair-courts movement that Justice at Stake helped build.”
Brandenburg said, “It’s bittersweet to leave Justice at Stake after 14 years, but I’m proud of what we’ve done together: built a movement from scratch, put the fair courts issue on the national map, and won and defended reforms to keep courts fair and impartial. During that time, Justice at Stake has grown from four staff to more than a dozen, more than tripled its budget and recruited dozens of partners and allies to the fair courts cause.” He added, “Justice at Stake is poised to move forward with the fair courts field in our common crusade to preserve impartial justice.” Read more
A costly and crowded primary race for Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court will be decided today, with a field of 12 candidates about to be whittled to six nominees for three seats. Justice at Stake and Brennan Center ad spending analyses that peg broadcast TV spending at $2.4 million are cited in reports by The Center for Public Integrity and the Sharon (PA) Herald. Meanwhile, a piece in the Philadelphia Business Journal quotes JAS partner group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, noting that candidate fundraising at this point in the election cycle is easily outpacing fundraising in the state’s last contested Supreme Court race. And the race’s most successful fundraiser to date, Democratic candidate Judge Kevin Dougherty, notched an endorsement from the state’s senior US Senator, Robert Casey, according to Politics PA.
So far, the race has seen no independent spending, as only candidates’ campaigns have aired ads or spent funds in the primary. Ads have also avoided negative attacks, and ethics has been an important campaign theme. But there is concern that once the primary is over, both spending and negativity in the race may dramatically increase if outside partisan groups jump in.
In a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Philly.com, Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz notes, “There is a money problem threatening judicial races in America, but it is not the total amount spent. The problem is independent super PAC spending.” He urges who proceed to the general election to “agree among themselves to ask any outside groups who support them to simply contribute to the candidate’s campaign rather than spending money independently.”
Advocates who would like to see reform of Pennsylvania’s judicial elections are raising concerns about fundraising in current races for three Supreme Court openings. The total has climbed to nearly $3 million and includes a personal friend’s $500,000 donation to one candidate.
“It was not that long ago when $500,000 was a whole campaign for appellate court candidates,” said Barry Kauffman, director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, according to the Associated Press.
“Unfortunately, judicial races are fueled by money and too often that money comes from lawyers or potentially, litigants,” said Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, which wants to see a merit selection system adopted for picking appellate judges. “There’s just something wrong with a system that practically requires the campaigns of judges and would-be judges to solicit campaign contributions and endorsements” from those who may appear before them in court, Marks said. Read more
With a primary vote set for May 19, a dozen candidates for three seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have already raised nearly $3 million, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Because it is unprecedented to have three open seats in one Pennsylvania high court election, some analysts have forecast record-setting spending. The Inquirer noted that one candidate, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Kevin Dougherty, has reported raising more than $707,000. His brother is the local head of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. At least $302,000 of Judge Dougherty’s campaign funds have come from that union.
Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts described Judge Dougherty as a credible high court candidate and also said, “It’s really hard to argue that people’s perception of such a system is not corroded when judges can accept huge amounts of money from groups and individuals who could very well come before them.” PMC is a Justice at Stake partner organization. Read more
The many factors that Pennsylvania judicial candidates emphasize in hopes that voters will identify with them are examined in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, which notes that the factors often do not determine a judge’s qualifications.
“There are so many variables,” said political scientist G. Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College, “and I don’t know that they have anything to do with judicial qualifications.”
Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization, said factors such as geography and gender “are the kind of things that can matter when voters don’t know about a candidate’s legal experience or reputation.”
A dozen candidates are running for three openings on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this year.
With 12 candidates competing for three seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this year, the would-be justices both have to keep an eye on the money and also be alert to ethical and public perception questions around raising it.
That’s the thrust of a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on the eve of the deadline for the judicial candidates to submit their first financial reports of the year.
“Some say it undermines the judiciary’s credibility for judges to be hustling for money — but in an election, fundraising prowess is one way candidates prove they are credible,” the newspaper reported. It quoted G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College, as saying sizable fundraising numbers “send the message ‘I’m a serious candidate.'”
The money that judicial candidates raise “usually comes from lawyers and special-interest groups who have an interest in the outcome of cases,” said Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization. Read more