Archive for the 'Judicial Independence' Category
The Florida legislature has a documented history of trying to bash the courts for decisions it doesn’t like, and that explains the genesis of a new proposal for judicial term limits, columnist Paula Dockery writes at TBO.com.
A former Republican state legislator, Dockery says the proposal for limits on the terms of state Supreme Court justices and appeals court judges “smells of retaliation” given legislators’ unhappiness with the high court’s ruling on a redistricting plan drawn in the legislature (see Gavel Grab). “We lose good, experienced judges and justices arbitrarily” with such term limits, she says. Read more
A recent editorial in the Charlotte Observer raised concern over the effect that the rising cost of winning judicial elections has on the independence of the judiciary.
Edward Hinson, author of the article and a lawyer who has been practicing in North Carolina for over 30 years and served on the state’s Judicial Standards Commission, argues that outside spending undermines judges’ ability to be independent and non-partisan and puts many in an ethical quandary. “Since the U.S. Supreme Court has lifted most restrictions on corporate campaign spending, the specter of a judiciary brought to you – or, some fear, bought for you – by corporate money cannot be dismissed.”
To illustrate this argument, the article goes on to highlight individual donors who give large sums of money to elect judges to courts in which they have cases pending. “A jury there had awarded $50 million in damages to plaintiffs suing Massey Coal Co. Massey appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court. While the case was pending, Massey’s chairman poured $3 million into a campaign to defeat one of the justices seeking reelection. The new justice, elected with the $3 million boost, declined to withdraw from hearing the appeal. He joined the 3-2 majority in a vote to reverse the verdict as Massey wanted. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the injustice and reversed the decision, citing a “constitutionally unacceptable appearance of impropriety.” But it did so without drawing any clear boundary.”
“To change to an appointive system would require amending our state Constitution, but the effort would be worthwhile. What’s at stake is nothing less than an independent, honorable system of justice.”
Appointed to a new commission aiming to improve North Carolina’s judicial system, a journalist says he hopes that its work will help build public trust in the independence and impartiality of our courts.
Doug Clark of the Greensboro News & Record says in a column that he’s especially concerned about trust in the state courts and in helping educate the public to better understand how they work:
“In recent court races, we’ve seen outside groups with partisan interests spend millions of dollars to promote or attack judicial candidates. Our legislature ended public funding for appellate campaigns, which had been successfully adopted after the 1996 report and relieved candidates of having to raise so much money. Now lawmakers aim to return partisan labels to the ballot for some judicial races. These aren’t steps that instill public trust in the impartiality of our justice system.
“I’m also concerned about a lack of transparency and access to information in the justice system, as well as the public’s lack of understanding about the work of judges and the courts.”
A column by analyst Lyle Denniston in the Constitution Daily takes Justice at Stake Interim Executive Director Liz Seaton’s recent piece for Talking Points Memo (see Gavel Grab) as a jumping-off point, and asks, “Do state legislatures have the power to shut down state courts?” Seaton’s piece highlighted recent events in Kansas, where legislation was passed that put the entire judicial system budget at risk. In that piece, Seaton wrote that “an axe is hanging over funding of the entire state court system because elected officials chose to make political pawns of state courts.”
In his analysis, Denniston notes “the actions of a growing number of state legislatures to rein in what some lawmakers apparently believe are courts that exercise too much power and are too resistant to what legislators want from them.” Examining the situation in Kansas, he writes that “when the legislature uses its budget powers in a way that definitely seems to be controlling how judges rule on legal questions, that stirs up the separation-of-powers controversy to a pitched level.”
“The drama in Kansas has now mushroomed into a fundamental test of the nature of state government, at least when two of the branches are so at odds that a constitutional crisis develops, ” Denniston concludes. He adds that it will likely fall to the very Kansas state officials who are enmeshed in the controversy, to untangle the legal mess that has ensued.
The Registrar of Voters in Orange County, Ca. has given a go-ahead for petitioners to start gathering signatures in their effort to recall a judge whose sentencing of a pedophile stirred controversy. The judge has called the recall petition “an attack on judicial independence.”
The Orange County Register reported the latest developments in the effort to recall Superior Court Judge Marc Kelly. The deadline for collecting signatures is Dec. 31, and the recall campaign chairman said a minimum of 90,829 verifiable signatures will be required in order to get a recall election on the June 2016 ballot.
To learn background about the sentencing and controversy, see Gavel Grab.
Over the July 4th holiday weekend, opinions in two Kansas newspapers sounded calls to protect fair and impartial courts from efforts to inject politics into the selection of judges.
The opinions responded to a wave of criticism of courts from Kansas elected officials, including statements by Gov. Sam Brownback last month (see Gavel Grab) and his calls for changing the ways that judges are chosen.
A Lawrence Journal-World editorial underscored the importance of insulating courts from popular opinion and political majorities:
“What the critics don’t seem to understand is that courts should not — and should never — be in the business of responding to public opinion. The executive and legislative branches at both the state and national level are directly responsible to the public, but the judiciary is intended to be responsible only to the law of the land. It’s not a matter of majority rule.”
Ruth Marcus wrote in The Washington Post regarding the court’s health care ruling that it “helps — or should help — undermine the cynical view that all judges are mere partisans in robes, reflexively ruling for their team.”
In the New York Times, Jeffrey Rosen wrote about Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., “It’s understandable that liberals and conservatives are disappointed with the chief justice for rejecting positions they deeply favor. But Chief Justice Roberts’s relatively consistent embrace of judicial deference to democratic decisions supports his statement during his confirmation hearings that judges should be like umpires calling ‘balls and strikes.’” Read more
Justice at Stake, remarking on the numerous attacks on courts that preceded the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling on Friday, called the 5-4 decision “a vivid illustration of the central role of courts in our society and democracy” and a reminder of the importance of protecting impartial courts.
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, upholding marriage rights for same-sex couples, is a vivid illustration of the central role of courts in our society and democracy – and a reminder of how vigilantly their independence and impartiality must be protected. As the issue of marriage rights has progressed through the courts, we have seen numerous calls for impeachment of judges and punitive measures designed to strip courts of their authority. Today’s decision will come under fire as well, especially since we are entering a heated political season. But we must always bear in mind that courts are not beholden to politicians or public sentiment, only to the law and the constitution.”
Controversy over strings attached to the Kansas judicial budget is attracting coverage across the state and nation. Under new legislation, the entire state court operating budget for 2016 and 2017 would be cut if the state Supreme Court rules recent administrative changes unconstitutional.
The Wall Street Journal says that legal experts believe “the legislation may be the first to peg the Third Branch’s budget to the outcome of an individual case, and public-interest groups described it as the most pointed challenge to judicial independence in recent memory.” An editorial in the Lawrence Journal-World describes the legislation as “blackmail” and a “power grab,” whereby “lawmakers are trying to alter the roles, responsibilities and fundamental balance of power among the state’s three branches of government.”
“If legislators and the governor think the Kansas Constitution is wrong,” the editorial reads, “they should tackle that issue head-on and seek to change it — not use budget blackmail to try to force the state’s independent judiciary to change its mind.” An op-ed in the Kansas City Star agrees, arguing that the bill is about control, not about decentralizing power as proponents assert.
Watch Gavel Grab as this story develops.
The Wichita Eagle posted an editorial criticizing the Kansas legislature for punitively stripping the Supreme Court of budgetary powers.
The state’s high court has the constitutional power over “general administrative authority over all courts in this state,” but the 2014 judicial budget countered this provision. Moreover, the law included “a non-severability clause [which] guaranteed that if a court struck down the policy changes as unconstitutional, the judicial funding would fall, too.” Partnered with the court’s recent blocking of some major legislation, the editorial contends that the move sent a “clear message”
The 2015 judicial budget, which was recently approved by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, contains a similar clause, but specifies the funding will be revoked for two fiscal years if the measure is ruled unconstitutional.