Litigation

Madison Center?s ?Bogeyman? Defense

By Charlie Hall

A New York Times article on the landmark case of Caperton v. Massey quotes a claim that the real goal of the landmark appeal is to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to eliminate judicial elections as inherently unconstitutional.  Even as legal bogeymen go, this one suggests that special interests are getting awfully worried that they’re going to be caught overstepping the Constitution. 

As widely publicized, Caperton v. Massey involves a West Virginia coal executive who spent $3 million to elect a new justice, at a time when a $50 million jury award against his company was working its way toward the state Supreme Court. The petition argues that the newly elected justice, Brent Benjamin, must recuse himself to remove the “probability of bias.”

But to quote the Times article, a darker agenda is being claimed:

Lawyers for Massey suggest that the case is a Trojan horse whose real intent is to do away with judicial elections because any spending in such elections is suspect. ?Any impartiality concerns raised by campaign spending are inherent in the state?s decision to hold judicial elections,? James Bopp Jr. wrote in a brief supporting Massey for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

The article, by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak, cut out the punchline from Bopp’s brief, where he writes that: “… any argument that such spending violates due process is functionally an argument that judicial elections are unconstitutional.?

Sounds pretty ominous.  And in fact, it wilts quickly under even the most modest reality check.  (more…)

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 17, 2009 (boomark / email).