Archive for the 'JAS Partner News' Category
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
An Allegheny County, Pa. judge running for the state Superior Court, who vowed to accept no donations in campaigning for the Democratic nomination, gets a tip of the hat from a local editorial for his “refreshing” approach.
Judge Robert J. Colville’s stance is commended by a Pocono Record editorial. “No one appearing in court, he said, should have to wonder whether the judge presiding in the case received a campaign contribution from a lawyer or litigant on the other side,” the editorial says approvingly.
It also quotes Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization, about his refusal to take campaign donations in the primary and about the light this casts on state judicial elections. “It’s an extremely partisan process to get a non-partisan job,” Marks said recently (see Gavel Grab).
As hundreds of candidates prepare to run for various levels of judgeships in Pennsylvania, a (Pittsburgh) Tribune-Review article includes questions about the harmful influence of elections upon fair and impartial courts.
“If you’re going to run an effective political campaign, you have to do things that are inconsistent with being a good judge, there’s just no doubt about it,” said Robert Byer, an attorney who ran unsuccessfully for Commonwealth Court in the early 1990s. “You get a judge that likes politics too much and that’s a dangerous thing.”
Twelve candidates are vying for three open seats on the state’s Supreme Court, and spending on the contests could be high. Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a Justice at Stake partner organization, told the Tribune-Review that campaign donations often are most generous from those who have an interest in the courts. Read more
Last week, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel had harsh words about electing judges when he sentenced a former Philadelphia Traffic Court judge, Willie Singletary, to 20 months in prison for perjury in a “ticket-fixing” scandal. Judge Stengel said:
“How someone so obviously unqualified for this office can be elected has more to do with the diseased political system that puts people like this up for office than it does about Mr. Singletary himself.”
An Allegheny County, Pa. judge seeking a seat on the state Superior Court vowed to accept no donations in campaigning for the Democratic nomination. “I am asking the voters to consider my candidacy on the merits of my experience and my qualifications, not my ability or willingness to raise cash,” said Robert Colville. He will fund his own campaign.
A spokesman for the campaign of Philadelphia Judge Alice Dubow, also seeking the Democratic nomination in the May 19 primary, said Judge Dubow plans to engage in fundraising to “get out the message so voters know more about who the candidates are.”
The Associated Press quoted Lynn Marks of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts as saying, “Statewide judicial candidates shouldn’t be in the fundraising and campaign business.” Marks added, “It’s an extremely partisan process to get a non-partisan job.” PMC is a Justice at Stake partner organization.