Archive for the 'Public Financing' Category
Not only will the stakes be high when four justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court are expected to seek reelection this year, but the legislature’s rewriting some laws could also contribute to runaway spending on the court elections.
A (Greensboro) News-Record editorial raises this specter in casting a dubious eye on the new laws and their impact. The headline accompanying the editorial? “Big bucks judges.”
The legislature eliminated a pioneering public financing program for judicial elections and raised individual limits on donations to judicial campaigns from $1,000 to $5,000 per election. About the changes, the editorial asks:
“Why did the legislature open to door to greater big-money influence in judicial races? Why were these changes tucked into a sweeping election reform bill highlighted by a voter ID requirement that drew almost all the attention? Read more
In April, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez vetoed legislation intended to update a voluntary system of public financing for elections of appellate court judges (see Gavel Grab). Now advocates for public financing say they are making headway in addressing the governor’s concerns about the legislation’s constitutionality.
“We have answered her concerns, and are working to gain her support,” Viki Harrison, executive director for Common Cause New Mexico and Tam Doan, research director for Public Campaign, write in an Albuquerque Journal op-ed. Public Campaign and the national Common Cause organization are Justice at Stake partner groups.
The vetoed legislation was drafted in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, from 2011. The high court struck down a provision in Arizona’s law that furnished extra taxpayer dollars to participating candidates when privately funded foes or independent groups spent more. It was called a “trigger funds” provision.
The legislation was intended to set up a small donor matching system. Under it, candidates who participated would have gotten an initial public financing grant and after that, would have received a 4-1 match for donations of up to $100.No comments
A prominent West Virginia attorney says the public has lost its faith in fair and impartial courts, but “[i]t doesn’t have to be that way,” Justice at Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg writes in a Charleston Gazette op-ed.
Brandenburg spotlights West Virginia’s adoption this year of a permanent law for the public financing of judicial elections, after he mentions an earlier instance of runaway campaign spending that “gave the courts a black eye in West Virginia and beyond” and resulted in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Caperton v. Massey:
“Public financing isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t fix every problem with judicial elections. But it does at least one very important thing: It allows judicial candidates to opt in to a system that protects them from having to solicit money from the same lawyers, businesses and other parties who may appear before them in court. Read more
Fair courts in North Carolina are facing challenges from multiple directions as a result of action in this year’s legislature.
Gavel Grab has reported extensively about the legislature’s elimination of a public financing program for judicial elections. Billy Corriher of the Center for American Progress says in a ThinkProgress blog post that there’s more: the legislature voted to cut back on campaign finance disclosure requirements. He reports about an election changes bill approved by the legislature:
“The bill also eliminates a corporate independent spending disclosure rule and a requirement that independent spenders running ads from May to September of an election year must disclose their donors.”
Corriher also touches on changes judicial discipline procedures that the legislature approved. (The North Carolina Bar Association has urged a veto by Gov. Pat McCrory.) Corriher says the changes “will make the justices less accountable for violating rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest from undermining the integrity of the judiciary.” Read moreNo comments
Public trust in fair and impartial courts is increased when there is “awareness that judges rely on public, not private, money” in their election bids, according to research cited by two political scientists at North Carolina State University.
In their (Raleigh) News & Observer commentary, Michael Cobb and James Zink discuss their public opinion research in lamenting the state legislature’s action this year to kill a pioneering state program for public financing of judicial elections.
When respondents were asked to read a fictitious news article about a state Supreme Court judge who cast the deciding vote in a controversial zoning law case, they were presented with varying versions. One gave no information about the judge’s campaign funding, one depicted him as relying on public financing and one portrayed him as relying on private campaign funding. Read moreNo comments
North Carolina’s legislature keeps passing legislation to change the way judges are selected.
After legislators passed a budget bill last week that ends funding for public financing of appellate judicial elections, a pioneering reform to protect courts from special interest influence, the House gave final approval to a major voting changes bill. It formally repeals the public financing law, according to a WRAL news report.
At Huffington Post, Adam Smith of Public Campaign wrote, “The repeal of a popular public financing program defies common sense, but it also defies the people who have actually used it. In June, 14 of the 15 members of the Court of Appeals urged the legislature to maintain the system.”
In addition, the Republican-controlled legislature voted separately to give the governor more authority and let him appoint whomever he chooses for District Court judgeships, eliminating a requirement that such vacancies must be filled from lists of candidates chosen by the local bar. Read moreNo comments
North Carolina’s legislature approved on Wednesday a $20.6 billion budget and sent it to Gov. Pat McCrory for his signature. The final version, like initial versions passed in each chamber, would kill the state’s pioneering public financing program for judicial elections, according to The Voter Update, an online magazine of the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
Justice at Stake was among groups lending support to preserving the popular program. After both legislative chambers passed respective budget plans that would effectively kill the program, JAS Acting Executive Director Liz Seaton said:
“[T]he real losers will be North Carolina residents, who made it clear in a recent poll that they are disinclined to support legislators who favor a bigger role for money in judicial elections. Now the people face the loss of a clean-elections program that helped insulate their judges from the influence of moneyed special interests. The politicians who decided to eliminate this program are disregarding the will of the people they were elected to represent, as well as ignoring the potentially disastrous effects of large sums of private money that will inevitably flow into the state’s justice system.”
The N.C. Center for Voter Education is a JAS partner organization.No comments
The looming “destruction” of North Carolina’s public financing program for judicial elections is one more unfortunate step taken by the state legislature this year to retreat from successful and progressive policies, editorial board member Dorothy Samuels writes in a New York Times blog.
Gavel Grab has chronicled budget versions passed by each chamber in the legislature that would effectively kill the pioneering and popular public financing program, aimed at protecting state courts from the influence of special interest spending. Samuels quotes Alicia Bannon of the Brennan Center for Justice, a Justice at Stake partner group, as documenting the program’s impact:
“In 2002, the last year without public financing, 73 percent of campaign funds for judicial candidates came from attorneys and special interest groups,” Bannon wrote in a state newspaper op-ed. “After public financing was introduced in 2004, that number dropped to 14 percent. Last year, every single candidate for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opted to receive public financing.” Read moreNo comments
Two defenders of North Carolina’s public financing program for appellate judicial candidates argue in a (Raleigh) News & Observer op-ed for its preservation, saying the state must not “put [its] judicial seats up to the highest bidder.”
Critics are working in the state legislature to eliminate the program, and both chambers have approved budget plans that would effectively kill it. But Paul Carrington, a Duke law professor, and H. Parks Helms, a lawyer and former legislator, contend in the op-ed that it has generally worked well to insulate appellate courts from the influence of special interest spending.
“[F]or judicial office-seekers whose job is to listen to claims and defenses of litigants with open minds, campaign funding must be controlled,” they write. “North Carolina began electing judges with its 1868 state constitution, and its judiciary has not been corrupted with money – yet. But that statement cannot be made with respect to numerous other states that elect judges with big money campaigns.”
They conclude, “For our legislature simply to abolish public funding would be a step favoring judicial corruption.”No comments
North Carolina’s embattled law for public financing of judicial elections “is indispensable to public confidence in our state’s judiciary,” Paul Carrington (photo), a Duke law professor a former dean of Duke’s law school, says in a Herald-Sun op-ed.
The op-ed is entitled, “Public funding: Why N.C. courts aren’t for sale.” In it, Carrington delves further into case law cited by Art Pope, Gov. Pat McCrory’s budget director, as rendering unconstitutional the use of attorneys’ fees for the public financing program. Gavel Grab mentioned earlier an op-ed in which the author disputed Pope’s characterization of the case as flat wrong.
According to Carrington, the 2009 Wake County Superior Court ruling “lends no support to Pope’s contention, and no appeal was taken from his ruling to a higher state court.” Read moreNo comments