Litigation

Editorial Deplores ?Big-Bucks? AL Court Races

By Peter Hardin

Alabama’s  No. 1 ranking for spending on state Supreme Court races has upset one state newspaper, which calls the continuing distinction “troubling.”

A Montgomery Advertiser editorial decries the $4.3 million spent by candidates for three seats on the high court last year, and it points out that according to the Justice at Stake Campaign, the sum topped similar spending in any other state.

All told, Alabama Supreme Court candidates have spent more than $45 million since the 2000 election cycle, the editorial reported, drawing on JAS data. The editorial cautions that the high spending can create a perception of tilted justice in the courtroom:

“These big-bucks races bring into question the one thing Alabamians most desire, and most deserve, in their Supreme Court justices — absolute impartiality. A justice’s obligation is to the law, not to a constituency, but when a judge or a judgeship candidate has to raise millions of dollars to wage a campaign, that crucial perception of impartiality is difficult to maintain.”

One alternative to partisan elections, the editorial suggests, would be “a hybrid appointment/election process in which a justice is initially appointed to the court, then faces a retention election at the end of the term in which the voters decide whether to retain or remove the justice.” (You can learn more about appointment/retention systems from the JAS issues page on the topic.) The editorial concludes:

“Something like this is surely preferable to the scramble for campaign dollars that marks partisan races for the highest court in our state.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 07, 2011 (boomark / email).