Archive for the 'Judicial Elections' Category
Under a new process for choosing West Virginia judges in a nonpartisan election, the candidates’ names will appear so far down the primary ballot in some jurisdictions that they will seem virtually hidden, said one judge who spoke publicly about the change.
“Those elections are hidden at the back of the ballot and, in terms of how we put the ballots together, that’s a real problem in terms of judicial elections, especially on the Republican side because of the big list,” Raleigh Circuit Judge John Hutchison said, according to WVMetronews.com. Because the names of 250 potential delegates to the Republican National Convention are listed first, a voter using a voting machine in Raleigh County must first punch “next page” 17 times to get to the nonpartisan election, he said. Hutchison said a voter education effort is needed. Read more
In a primary scheduled for May 17, four candidates are running for a single seat on the Idaho Supreme Court in a nonpartisan race. Although the justices “have a heavy hand in reshaping the state for years,” according to The Associated Press, turnout is not expected to be high.
The candidates are Clive Strong, a deputy attorney general; Curt McKenzie, a Republican state senator; Robyn Brody, an attorney; and Idaho Court of Appeals Judge Sergio Gutierrez. The AP notes that “Idaho is currently just one of two states with no supreme court justices who are female or people of color.”
The Spokesman-Review has this article quoting each of the candidates regarding his or her views about diversity on the court, and this article quoting a justice who is stepping down from the bench. It is headlined, “Justice Jones: ‘Judicial elections are different kinds of animals.’”
Maryland’s process for electing Circuit Court judges, which has repeatedly been targeted for reform, is “a muddled system whose pretense at nonpartisanship fools no one,” a CapitalGazette.com editorial said.
As Exhibit A for its argument, the editorial said the Republican Central Committee invited to a local primary election forum “only GOP candidates for the four Anne Arundel County Circuit Court judgeships at stake in this year’s election,” although the elections were nonpartisan, with the names of both Democrats and Republicans appearing on the same ballots. Read more
There are increasing prospects for a highly politicized retention (up-or-down) election of justices on the Kansas Supreme Court this fall, a Kansas City Star editorial warns. It adds, “Voters will have to protect the Kansas Supreme Court from unfair attacks on its independence.”
While the court has sparked the ire of numerous legislators and Gov. Sam Brownback with its orders for greater spending on public education, it actually “is acting impartially and carefully on the complicated school funding issue — as Kansans expect and deserve,” the editorial says.
Four of the court’s seven justices, out of five who will be up for retention, are expected to be targeted for removal by critics who are unhappy with their rulings. Supporters of the justices are beginning to speak out. The editorial also notes that legislators are working to advance a measure that would expand the legal grounds for impeaching Kansas justices, a bill that Justice at Stake has called unconstitutional (see Gavel Grab).
With a new process under way this year for choosing West Virginia Supreme Court justices, the election on May 10 could have unintended consequences for some of those who sought reform, commentator Hoppy Kercheval writes at West Virginia Metro News.
The election will be non-partisan under a new law adopted by the legislature. Among those who pushed for change, Kercheval says, were some leading business organizations and the GOP. Yet the process might result in the election of former Attorney General Darrell McGraw, also a former justice, who has had a long political career and whose name may be better known than his four rivals, according to Kercheval. And here is why his election might displease some of the reformers: Read more
Three candidates in a five-way race for the West Virginia Supreme Court have purchased television ad contracts worth a combined total of at least $274,140, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice said on Thursday. The election will be held May 10.
TV ad contracts purchased by the campaign of former state legislator William “Bill” Wooton total at least $183,790; by incumbent Justice Brent Benjamin, at least $48,710; and by attorney Beth Walker, at least $41,640. No ad contracts have yet been recorded for two other candidates, attorney Wayne King and former state Attorney General Darrell McGraw, Jr.
“We’re seeing encouraging signs in West Virginia’s Supreme Court race so far,” said JAS Executive Director Susan Liss. “TV ad spending is not excessively high, candidates are using advertising to talk about their qualifications while avoiding attack ads and smear campaigns, and no outside spenders have jumped into the mix. Compared with what we’ve seen in judicial elections in other states so far this year and even in West Virginia’s own history, this is a significant improvement.” Read more
In Florida, a retiring Volusia Circuit Court judge publicly endorsed an appointive system for choosing judges, using a judicial nominating commission, as superior to elections. To seek election as a judge all you need is a filing fee, five years’ experience as a lawyer and “a pulse,” he said.
Circuit Judge Joseph G. Will said the following about the nominating commission-aided process, according to The Daytona Beach News-Journal, in a radio interview:
“You have the assurance of knowing when that is done that local people, not all lawyers, not all people from the community, but a nominating commission made up of people who are level headed and appointed by one governor or another as they proceed along will make that decision to make sure that the person who’s being recommended is competent and qualified for the position. They still have to have a pulse and practice for five years.”
Costly judicial elections in Wisconsin with big outside spending are fueling calls for reform. A Wisconsin Gazette editorial declares that it’s way past time to switch from judicial elections to a merit selection system for choosing qualified judges, and the editorial also criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling:
“Until Citizens United is thrown on the trash heap of history, we must stop electing justices. Essentially what we’re doing is putting justice up for sale.”
In the state Supreme Court election held earlier this month (see Gavel Grab), candidates and outside groups spent at least $4.3 million in the race.
An attorney challenging a new law changing the way North Carolina Supreme Court justices are selected argued on Wednesday in front of those same justices. There was one exception; a justice who is seeking a new term in November stepped aside.
The new law would permit elected incumbent justices to seek a new term through a retention (up-or-down) election rather than a contested race. It was struck down by a lower court, and that decision quickly was appealed to the state’s highest tribunal.
The law’s challengers include Sabra Faires, an attorney running for the court in November, and two unlikely allies, the left-leaning ACLU of North Carolina and right-leaning Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom, according to The News & Observer. Faires’ lawyer argued in court, and the other challengers in their briefs, that the shift requires a statewide vote on rewriting the state Constitution. This Constitution mandates that justices “shall be elected,” according to The Associated Press. Read more
The North Carolina Supreme Court was to hear oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving how most N.C. Supreme Court justices are elected, The Associated Press reported.
A Superior Court panel recently voided a new law giving elected Supreme Court justices an option to seek a new term in a retention, rather than contested, election (see Gavel Grab). The state elections board asked for review of that ruling, and the case was set for the state’s highest court on an expedited basis.
Melissa Price Kromm of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections wrote a commentary in The Jefferson Post saying the new law was “another brazen move to reduce the power of average North Carolinians.” Her piece recounted how the legislature also scrapped the public financing for judicial elections. Read more