Sep 18 2014

$3.1 Million Spent On Television Ads For Judicial Campaigns

Published by under Merit Selection

Justice at Stake reported that an overwhelming $3.1 million has been spent this year alone on TV ads for state supreme court primaries and off-cycle elections.

More money has been flowing into state elections than ever before. For instance, North Carolina judicial candidates just spent a state record amount of $1.3 million in their primary election. Tennessee, Idaho, and Arkansas spent MORE money in judicial election years than in their previous judicial election cycles. The amount of money flowing through these elections should not go unquestioned, especially when groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee specifically target upcoming elections, such as in Ohio, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, New Mexico and Texas. Some of these states have attempted to protect themselves from future dark money influence Montana and New Mexico, while others are far more susceptible to the influence of dark money (North Carolina and Texas).

The more alarming fact is that 53% of the spending on television ads in Tennessee this year was done by outside interest groups. In Arkansas, a grand 88% of the spending was contributed by outside groups. In 2011-2012, special interest groups were responsible for only 38% of the total TV spending. In this election cycle, special interest groups have been responsible for 60% of the total spending on television ads. With dark money interest groups on the prowl, how can we expect the judicial candidates to focus on fairness in November when 8 states will have contested elections for their supreme courts and 14 others will have retention elections? When will the courts refocus on the integrity and fairness of our judicial systems?

It would be a mistake for Pennsylvania to do nothing to stop the inevitable flow of outside money into our judicial elections. We must safeguard our courts from the corrosive effect expensive judicial elections have on the public confidence in the courts. Through merit selection, Pennsylvania would be free of influence from outsider money; and instead maintain highly qualified judges dedicated to fairness within our courts. It is important that Pennsylvanians take action for change in order to keep our justice system fair.

Find out additional information

No responses yet

Sep 10 2014

Names Should Not Be the Name of the Game

An editorial by Brent Larkin at the Northeast Ohio Media Group laments the state of the judicial election process in Ohio.  He writes about the bottom-of-the-ballot matchup between two Cuyahoga County Common Pleas candidates with near-“royal” names.

McMonagle vs. Gallagher.  In the red corner, the son of the incumbent, the beneficiary of a 15-1 McMonagle family record in Ohio judicial elections dating back to 1966.  In the blue corner, the niece of an appellate judge in the Ohio’s 8th district, based in Cleveland.  In fact,  the Gallagher name is so well known and liked in that district that fully 25% of the judges on the bench there share the last name.  That’s three out of twelve , including two Eileen Gallaghers.  Bushes, Kennedys – step aside.

Larkin’s point is not that this is the premier race of the 2014 political season.  On the contrary, voters in Cuyahoga County have 21 other races to decide before they even reach this one on their ballots.  There are 59 elected judgeships in the county – a lot for busy voters to keep track of.  But when they get to the polls, Larkin fears, “few things matter less to the electorate than qualification,” and “nothing matters more to them than a candidate’s last name.”

This isn’t a unique problem to Ohio, of course.  Just look at Pennsylvania. Our judges are often elected for arbitrary reasons  – whether it is because of their last names, party affiliations, connections to the right people, or the resources in their campaign coffers.  This leads to judges that are often under-qualified or unqualified because of a system that thrusts them into roles of immense power over the day-to-day lives of citizens.

Of course, there are plenty of judges who are worthy of the bench.  But all too often voters lack the information to ask the right questions.  How much experience does a judicial candidate have? What are their stances on important issues?  Do they display the work ethic, efficiency, temperament, and respect for the law that a successful and fair judge needs?

The system of electing judges in Pennsylvania perpetuates low-information, “sound-bite” voting and rewards many of the candidates that would be the most burdened if information about them were to come to light, whether to voters or to an independent commission.  Sunlight, as the saying goes, is the best of disinfectants.

The best way to elect an independent and impartial judiciary in Pennsylvania is to reward candidates based on merit, not on a wildcard such as last name. Public trust in the judiciary is crucial, and low-turnout elections don’t usually produce judges worthy of the confidence of the citizenry.

No responses yet

Aug 21 2014

19 Candidates For the Picking

Published by under Merit Selection

Could a reasonable person expect the average voter to perform in-depth and efficient background checks and research on 19 candidates for the election of one seat on the bench? North Carolina seems to place that level of optimistic confidence in their voters.

After Judge John Martin retired on August 1, 2014 from North Carolina’sSuperior Court,  19 judicial candidates stepped up in hopes to fill his vacant seat. Because Judge Martin retired after the primary elections, but before the general election, all candidates for his seat will be listed on the November ballot.  The person who is elected will have an 8 year term with the ability to alter or shape the climate and conditions of the North Carolinian courtroom.

Choosing judges is an important decision. Judges affect all aspects of our lives, from where we live to where we work to who we marry.  It’s important that the most qualified, fair and impartial judges sit on the bench. But by electing judges, however, we are all too familiar with the fact that the average voter will not research all the candidates in the judicial election in hopes to find the best fit for the job. And who would? Instead, judges are elected based on at things like name recognition, the ethnic or geographic background of a candidate, or even where a candidate is listed on the ballot. This type of chance should be concerning, as it does not ensure that a well-qualified and impartial person sits on the bench.

Although this is an extreme example, the North Carolina race for chief judge of the Superior Court clearly demonstrates the problems with judicial elections. Pennsylvania should NOT follow suit; as we should all know by now that repeating an action over again and again expecting a different result is the wrong path. But there are other options. Merit selection is the right solution to break this cycle. Merit selection ensures that only the most qualified, fair and impartial judges reach the bench.

No responses yet

Aug 06 2014

Need for Less Chance and More Focus on Qualifications in Judicial Selection

Published by under Merit Selection

On July 10, 2014, in the wake of a rare tied election, under the New Mexican constitution, the flip of a fifty cent piece decided that Kenneth Howard Jr. was declared the new magistrate judge of McKinley County.

While not as arbitrary as a coin flip, judges who are elected are often chosen based on random factors. Name recognition, apparent gender or ethnic background, where the judicial candidate is from, or even where the candidate is listed on the ballot are all major factors in deciding who sits on the bench. Do we want to leave judicial selection up to chance? Isn’t it better to use a system that takes the time and effort to seek and appoint the most qualified fair and impartial judges? These are not trick questions, yet Harrisburg has not delivered an answer.

Merit selection is a better way to choose judges because the process focuses on qualifications, not random and irrelevant factors. The merit based system operates under informed decisions, including testimony by sworn officials and various in depth screenings to determine the most qualified candidates. There is no haphazard game of chance for the public in the merit system. Plus, merit selection affords the public opportunities for more meaningful input through feedback during the nominating process and retention elections.

Pennsylvania’s justice system would benefit from a change to merit selection. The merit system is the best way to ensure a qualified, fair, and impartial judicial system.

Let’s not let the integrity of Pennsylvania’s justice system continue to rely on the whims of chance. It is time for merit selection to become a reality in Pennsylvania.

 

No responses yet

Aug 05 2014

Expensive Judicial Elections are an Assault on Our Courts

Published by under Judicial Elections

Tennessee courts are specifically tasked with deciding “on the constitutionality of legislation passed by the General Assembly” and to “consider the legality of administrative policies and regulations.”  Why then, are so many politically motivated groups spending so much campaign cash prior to the upcoming Tennessee Supreme Court retention elections?

The answer seems to be related to the Supreme Court justices appointing an attorney general who did not join other attorney generals in a lawsuit opposing the Affordable Care Act. For the record, once the Tennessee Supreme Court appoints an Attorney General, the Attorney General is completely independent and does not answer to the Court.

Regardless of the underlying motivations, the amount of money spent in an attempt to influence the retention elections is emblematic of recent trends of increasingly political and expensive judicial elections. According to Justice at Stake, the Tennessee Supreme Court retention election has set a record by exceeding $500,000 in television advertisement spending.  Tennessee Forum, a group that opposes retaining the three justices up for election, has contributed $245,000.  Likewise, Keep Tennessee Courts Fair, a group that supports retaining the three justices, has given a considerable contribution amounting to $210,000.

Industrialists Charles and David Koch have even thrown their hats in the ring by having their organization, Americans for Prosperity, contribute significant amounts to the campaign to unseat the three justices.

Judges should be chosen (and retained) based on their qualifications including legal experience, judicial temperament, and quality of their decisions. Choosing judges (or choosing whether to retain judges) through a political process for a nonpartisan job is nonsensical.

Pennsylvania needs to start learning from the examples of states like Tennessee. We need to protect our courts from special interests and politicians that see them as just another tool in the political arsenal. It’s time for Harrisburg to stand up to entrenched special interests and have a serious discussion about commonsense reforms like merit selection.

No responses yet

Jul 24 2014

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Creates Judicial Selection Plan

Published by under Merit Selection

Fixing a problem usually consists of seeking out those who are most knowledgeable and familiar with the situation.  Such is the case when former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System collaborated to develop a merit selection plan they hope states will adopt.

This Plan gives a blueprint for states to select judges in the most nonpartisan and fair way and to ensure that judges are the most qualified for the position.  It consists of four parts: a nominating commission, gubernatorial appointment, judicial performance review, and a retention election.

The judicial nominating commission component is intended to be a diverse nonpartisan committee, appointed from a variety of sources, that screens and identifies candidates to forward on to the governor.  This process makes sense because the nominating commission will be able to thoroughly evaluate candidates and select the most qualified.  In contrast, voters in judicial elections often choose who to vote for based on irrelevant factors, such as name recognition, position on the ballot, and perceived gender or race. The nominating commission can focus solely on qualifications such as legal experience and knowledge, judicial temperament, and community involvement.

The nominating commission then sends a short list of candidates to the governor for appointment. The Plan suggests limiting both the number of candidates on the list and the time for the governor to act. While the appointment is inevitably political, gubernatorial appointment is one place where the public can express their opinions about the candidates. Further, since all the candidates on the short list are extremely qualified, it makes little difference which candidate is selected.

The judicial performance review component allows for an evaluation of judges to be sent to the public.  The committee overseeing this aspect would be compromised of selected individuals made by appointing authorities.  This is important both for the judges to self-evaluate and constantly strive to improve their performance as well as for the public to have all relevant information when choosing whether or not to retain the judge.

Lastly, the plan proposes a retention election.  This crucial step allows for the people’s voice to be heard.  The public will decide whether the judge has performed his or her duties adequately.  Here, voters will elect the incumbent to a further term or vote against them returning to the bench. The public has a right to hold their judges accountable for their actions on and off the bench.

Merit selection balances the need to ensure that judges are qualified, fair and impartial with the public’s right to hold judges accountable.  Judicial elections are a political and partisan process for a nonpolitical, nonpartisan job.

If anyone would know the importance of judicial impartiality, it would certainly be a former Supreme Court justice.  Justice O’Connor recognizes this importance, it is now time for Pennsylvania legislators to follow suit.

No responses yet

Jul 10 2014

While not Perfect, Pennsylvania Could Learn from Maryland

Published by under Merit Selection

Fundraising, gaining political support, and campaigning.  These tasks, normally reserved for politicians running for political office, also exist within the non-political realm of the judiciary in the form of judicial elections.

 

Pennsylvania’s system of judicial elections creates a political atmosphere within the judicial branch that should not exist.  Instead of focusing squarely on the rule of law, judges have to focus on tasks usually left to the executive and legislative branches.

 

Some opponents of judicial selection reform in Pennsylvania argue that because we have not yet seen any catastrophic results from electing all our judges, there is no reason to reform the system. However, as recent developments in Maryland demonstrate, there is no guarantee that respectful, informative and clean judicial elections will continue.

 

According to an article in the Washington Post, this year’s trial court elections in Maryland have become unexpectedly contentious due to concerns about the conduct and connections of one of the judicial candidates. In fact, the campaign has become so political, some reformers are pushing to change the way judges are selected.

 

In Maryland, appellate court judges are selected through a merit selection process while trial court judges are elected. Reformers are using this election cycle as an example as to why all Maryland judges should be selected through merit selection.

 

Judicial selection should be a process of finding the most qualified, fair and impartial judges to sit on the bench. It should not rely on fundraising skills, political connections, or ability to successfully campaign.  The best fundraiser or campaigner is not necessarily the best judge.

 

Maryland is light years ahead of Pennsylvania in reforming their judicial selection process, but there is still room to further improve it.

 

It is time for Pennsylvania to follow suit and rid itself of judicial elections so it too can have the best decision makers on the bench.

No responses yet

Jun 27 2014

In the Right Spotlight

Can you name at least two candidates in any of the recent judicial elections in your district or state? Do you know something meaningful about the platform they ran on? Even if you can answer the first question, the second question might leave you stumped.

Public offices such as governor, representative and senator get more than their share of the media’s attention. When it comes to meaningful coverage of judicial elections, however, the public is often left in the dark. In the few cases when judicial elections gain wide spread media attention, it is usually for the wrong reasons, as was the case for the recent Supreme Court race in North Carolina. So then, the public is either not fully aware of judicial candidates or are left to make their decisions on television ads funded by partisan interest groups. In both cases, the public suffers.

Pennsylvania is currently one of only six states that elect all their judges in partisan elections. With the growing involvement of interest groups and their money, judicial campaigns are beginning to look more and more like political campaigns. Issues relevant to the bench, such as the candidate’s experience and track record of ruling by the law, are replaced by negative attacks on opponents and the political affiliation of candidates.

Compared to political leaders, judges are the public officials that citizens are most likely to come in direct contact with in their everyday lives. Judges play the important role of upholding the rule of law and making sure that justice is fairly and equally enacted amongst all. With such an important responsibility placed upon judges, it becomes crucial that there be an effective and reliable system in place to ensure that the best-qualified candidates are entrusted with carrying out the duties of the bench. This is where merit selection comes in.

Rather than continue the politicization of judicial elections, merit selection allows for candidates to be considered for and appointed to judgeships based on their qualifications and proven track record. Through nominating commissions that thoroughly vet candidates and retention elections, merit selection provides the public with opportunities for engaged participation in choosing judges, rather than relying on thirty second attack ads.

Tags: ,

No responses yet

Jun 05 2014

Pennsylvania House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee to Consider House Bill 1848

Published by under Merit Selection

The Bucks County Herald recently featured an op-ed column written by Charles Meredith encouraging members of the House Judiciary Committee to report out House Bill 1848 relating to merit selection of statewide judges. The Committee is scheduled to consider the bill early next week.

Now, all Pennsylvania judges are elected in expensive, partisan elections. House Bill 1848 would create a bi-partisan commission to screen and evaluate potential candidates for Pennsylvania’s Supreme, Superior, and Commonwealth Courts. Local judges would still be elected.

The merit selection process of House Bill 1848 involves four steps. A bi-partisan citizens nominating commission made up of lawyers and non-lawyers would evaluate judicial applicants and recommend the most qualified to the Governor. Next, the governor would nominate an individual from the short list created by the commission to be sent before the Senate for confirmation. Lastly, after the individual is confirmed as a judge, she or he can sit for a shortened term of four years before going before the voters in a nonpartisan retention election for a 10 year term, and every ten years following.

One glaring reason Pennsylvania should switch to merit selection is to maintain the role of a judge as an objective decision-maker. Judges are not, and should not be politicians. Judges are inherently different from the other elected officials. Using discretion to come to a well-reasoned objective decision is a judge’s main role, while other elected officials represent constituents and fight for their needs and desires. In doing so, these elected officials need to campaign and raise money to ensure they are elected and re-elected. Judges do not represent anyone. Instead, judges make objective decisions based on the rule of law. When the public sees judges campaigning and fundraising to win a seat on the bench, it takes away from their view of the judge as an objective decision-maker, and instead gives the impression that judges are the same as other politicians.

House Bill 1848 should be voted out of Committee because it represents a bi-partisan, commonsense effort to get the most qualified candidates to the bench by maintaining a judge’s primary role as decision-maker. It is time Pennsylvanians tell their representatives that judges are not politicians.

Tags: ,

No responses yet

May 29 2014

Political Justice

Across the country, politics is quickly rearing its head in the nation’s courtrooms. Lawmakers are infringing more and more upon the independence of the judiciary. Lawmakers in Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas have introduced bills that limit the power of the judiciary following unpopular decisions.

This phenomenon is made worse by increases in partisan financial support for judicial elections, which are also threatening the independence of the judiciary. Current judicial elections make it nearly impossible for judicial candidates to run without substantial donations to fund their campaigns. This has allowed partisan and special interest groups to have more influence on judicial elections through their funding of candidates. In North Carolina alone, special interest groups spent more than $1.3 million on the Supreme Court race, with $900,000 contributed from the Republican State Leadership Committee being used in attack adds against incumbent Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson.

A recent study by Center for American Progress reports that states have failed to update their judicial recusal rules to reflect potential conflict of interests resulting from campaign contributions.

Political pressure coupled with the increasing campaign contributions leaves our judiciaries in precarious situations. Editorials in The Washington Post and The New York Times highlight the growing concern over the loss of judicial independence. The judiciary has long been seen as the branch of government most isolated from the partisan bickering of politics. Judges are expected to rule in accordance with the law, safe from threats of retaliation from lawmakers. It is this separation of powers and the belief in the objectivity of the law, which has made our judicial system what is today. If events like those in Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas continue, our proud history of an independent judiciary could be at risk.

One way to push back against the pressure of politics and money is to change the way we select our judges. Moving from Pennsylvania’s current system of expensive, partisan judicial elections to the merit selection of judges would curb the influence of money and politics from our courts. Merit selection takes into account the candidate’s ability to uphold the rule of law rather than the candidate’s war chest or political affiliation. In merit selection, a nomination commission of private citizens vets judicial candidates, with the most qualified candidates being recommended to the governor for approval and senate confirmation. Once confirmed, judges will sit for a shortened term before facing voters in a yes/no retention election to determine if they are fulfilling their responsibilities as judges. This helps limit the pressures of politicians and their checkbooks that our judges currently face.

The events in Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas should serve as a warning that we need to take action to maintain the integrity of our judiciary. Here in Pennsylvania, PMC is currently pushing for legislation to implement judicial merit selection, protecting both the integrity of our judges and our justice system. We need an independent justice system that works for the people––not the politicians–– and merit selection is the best way to achieve that goal.

Tags: , ,

No responses yet

Next »