judgesonmerit.org

That’s the tile of an op-ed by two of our our partners — Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg and the Brennan Center’s Adam Skaggs — in Reuters.  It explores  the growing problems caused by campaign contributions in judicial elections.  The authors recount the increasing costs of judicial elections, the source of the funding, and the rise of “super spenders.”  They then remind us that “Court cases are supposed to be decided by the law, not by who wrote the biggest campaign check to the judge.”  The public concern about this is also growing, as recent polling data reveals that “Voters clearly recognize the risks to fair and impartial courts when judges have to depend on deep-pocketed benefactors to gain a seat on the bench.

The role of money in judicial elections and the public perception that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making are critical reasons to find a better way to choose judges.  Merit Selection takes judges out of the fundraising business; no longer would the public have to worry whether a lawyer or party in court had contributed to the campaign of one of the judges or justices deciding the case.

Over at Gavel Grab, Peter Hardin draws attention to the costly judicial elections underway in Alabama. Noting that Alabama has the most expensive Supreme Court elections in the country, Hardin examines an editorial that appeared in the Press-Register criticizing judicial elections.

The editorial opens with a strong critique of judicial elections in Alabama: “As long as state Supreme Court justices have to raise money – sometimes lots of it – to win their seats, justice in Alabama is going to look like it’s for sale.” It goes on to describe how judicial candidates go about raising money in the same way as candidates for other offices – going on the campaign trail, shaking hands, and actively fundraising. This creates the perception that judges can be influenced by campaign donations and political preferences. The editorial notes that Alabama’s rules regarding political action committees worsen the perception problem because they allow candidates and donors to hide the source of donations. The editorial echoes Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg’s concerns over judicial fundraising:

“As long as we’re asking more judges to dial for dollars from the people who appear before them, then the more we’re asking judges to act like Huey Long on the campaign trail and then turn around and act like Solomon in the court room.”

We agree that judges should not be in the fundraising business, and that their presence there diminishes public confidence in an impartial judiciary. We believe that a change to the selection process is necessary, and that merit selection is the way to ensure fair and impartial courts. The editorial concludes with a concern that we share in Pennsylvania:

“As long as the litmus test for Alabama Supreme Court justices is how well they can fund a political campaign, then the state’s going to be stuck with the reputation – or at least the perception – that it tolerates tainted justice.

This past weekend, the American Constitution Society held its annual conference in Washington D.C.  One of the panels addressed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton and its impact on states that elect judges.

According to the Blog of the Legal Times and Gavel Grab, the participants did not reach consensus on the best way to select judges, but we’re persuaded by a comment made by Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver.  Responding to Justice At Stake’s Bert Brandenburg explaining that after Caperton “the problem then becomes how much is too much for a judge to accept and still hear a case,”  Judge Kourlis argued:

[E]ven asking that question is “unseemly.” By asking what the threshold is, she said, people are saying there is an amount that is acceptable. ” Any time money is in the courtroom, you’re going to have the perception that it is affecting the judge’s decision.”

Judge Kourlis advocates a Merit Selection system as the answer.  We agree with her: the only way to solve the problems caused by money in judicial elections is to get judges out of the fundraising business.

Our partners at Justice At Stake commissioned a survey about the public’s attitudes towards the influence of campaign contributions on judicial decision-making , and guess what they found:  “An overwhelming percentage of U.S. adults believes that judges cannot be completely impartial and should not participate in cases that involve large campaign contributors.” As reported on Gavel Grab and in Justice At Stake’s press release, 81% of those surveyed also believe that judges should not be making their own decisions about recusing in such cases but instead should abide by the decision of another judge.

Reflecting on the poll results, Justice At Stake Executive Director Bert Brandenburg explained:

Americans overwhelmingly believe that campaign cash has no place in the courtroom. . . . They are very skeptical that a judge can be impartial when one side has spent big dollars to help put them on the bench.

As Pennsylvania’s judicial election season heats up, we should be asking ourselves why we continue to put would-be judges in the position of funding their campaigns with contributions from parties and lawyers likely to appear before them in court.  Why do we tolerate a system that undermines confidence that justice will be meted out impartially? It’s time for a change.  We need to get judges out of the fundraising business. Merit Selection can do that.

For many years, money has been a big issue in judicial elections.  Who’s giving campaign money to which candidate is already becoming a topic of interest for this fall’s Alabama Supreme Court election.

Campaign finance reports show that political action committees (PACs) driven by pro-business lobbyists account for the vast majority of the money raised for Republican Supreme Court candidate Greg Shaw. A significant percent of the money contributed to the campaign of Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, Shaw’s Democratic opponent, has come from law firms, individual attorneys and individuals.

Even the candidates recognize the problems with this system.  Shaw explained that enormous campaign contributions make voters wary: “There is a perception in Alabama that justice is for sale in this state. . . . That strikes at the very heart of the confidence level that Alabamians have in the Supreme Court.”

Large campaign contributions erode the voters’ confidence in their court system in Alabama and other states that hold judicial elections, including Pennsylvania. As Bert Brandenburg of Justice At Stake explained:

[P]olls show the public believes campaign contributions influence the outcome of court opinions. And a poll by the National Center for State Courts showed one in four state judges had the same opinion. “When the insiders feel like money is making a difference,” he said, “that’s pretty scary.”

Eliminating fundraising from judicial selection is a big reason to support adopting a Merit Selection system for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.