judgesonmerit.org

In a recent post titled “Justice for Sale?” on the American Constitution Society blog, Bert Brandenburg, the executive director of Justice at Stake, comments on the key findings in the newly released report “New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change.”

The report, which was released by Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, is a comprehensive review of spending in high court elections.

Some of the report’s findings include:

• Spending on state Supreme Court elections more than doubled in 2000-2009; candidates raised $206.9 million, compared with just $83.3 million in the 1990s.
• Outside groups – funded by business groups, plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions – poured in at least $39 million more in TV ads not approved by court candidates, ads that often viciously attacked and distorted the candidates’ records. Much of this involved secret money from unknown bankrollers.
• Twenty of the 22 states that hold at least some competitive elections for Supreme Court had their costliest election ever.

While pointing out that states electing judges has been around for a long time, Brandenburg points out a difference that has recently emerged:

What is new is the tidal wave of money. High court judges must routinely raise big money from parties who appear before them in court. Outside groups are spending millions more on ads to pressure judges and trash their reputations.

All this money has caused profound unease. Polls repeatedly have shown that three Americans in four believe campaign cash affects courtroom decisions. And Justice Sandra Day O’Connor says public trust is injured when elected judges appear beholden to a small group of self-interested bankrollers.

Although Brandenburg was talking about the 85 percent of state judges that face some form of election, he might as well have been talking just about Pennsylvania. The increasing money spent in appellate court elections in our state led to a record breaking combined $4.7 million spent in the last Supreme Court race – much of it coming from lawyers, firms and parties who appear before the justices.

As more and more money is spent, it has become increasingly difficult for  Pennsylvanians to believe that judges are impartial arbiters who can check their biases at the door after being forced to wage partisan campaigns that require fundraising.  This loss of public confidence weakens our courts. Judges should not have constituents, and people should not be given any reason to believe that justice is for sale. Merit selection is a way to combat this.

Read the Gavel Grab post here.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS