Litigation

Column: Why Soaring Judicial Election Costs Merit Concern

By Peter Hardin

Why should Americans care about the skyrocketing costs of judicial elections around the country?

In a National Journal column that draws heavily on a forum that Justice at Stake recently co-hosted, Eliza Newlin Carney  contends these factors justify mounting concern:

“One, the millions flowing into judicial elections are even more secretive and less regulated than federal campaign spending. Two, some judges targeted for ouster this year by big national groups are being penalized for a single vote — a new trend. Three, as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reminded a Washington audience last week, judges are different.”

At the Washington, D.C. event, co-hosted by the Committee for Economic Development, Justice O’Connor spotlighted her concern about eroding faith in the judiciary and increasing threats to judicial independence (see Gavel Grab). She also underscored why she believes judges are not like elected officials in other branches of government.

“Many think judges are just politicians in robes,” Justice O’Connor said. At one time, the courts were the “one safe place in our system of government where being right was more important than being popular,” she said. The jurist added: “This idea is being eroded by increasing threats to judicial independence around the country.”

The forum was held to discuss “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change,” written by JAS, the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in Politics and Hofstra law professor James Sample. You can read about the report by clicking here or by checking out Gavel Grab.

The National Journal article also touches on concerns raised by a new trend in retention (up-or-down) elections, toward high-spending and increasingly politicized contests based on a single, controversial court ruling.

Explained Charles Hall of Justice at Stake, “If you start to have national groups or big-money groups specifically gunning for judges on one vote they cast in one case, there’s a natural concern. Will judges start looking over their shoulders when they tackle controversial cases?”

Meanwhile, an article in the Chicago Daily Herald reports that in a local race for circuit judge, rival candidates disagree about whether judicial candidates should accept campaign money. Hall of JAS said the debate is a microcosm of national discussion sparked by soaring spending over judicial contests in the past decade.

“People have to understand that raising money from someone else is a part of the democratic process, and there is nothing improper nor illegal about doing so,” Hall said. “But at the same time, it is a very emotional issue, and as long as money is involved there will be a cloud over the system.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 04, 2010 (boomark / email).