judgesonmerit.org

In the wake of the 2010 election season, the Birmingham News editorial board criticizes the practice of electing judges in Alabama. The editorial uses as an example a particularly ugly race for a seat on a circuit court.

Describing the nasty tones that both campaigns utilized, the editorial comes to the conclusion that: “[b]oth candidates were demeaned in the attack/counterattack cycle, and so was the judicial system.” The editorial also correctly states that the ability to run a successful political campaign has no bearing on one’s qualification to be a good judge.

The editorial concludes with a call for Alabama to change its judicial selection process, stating a preference for moving to an appointment-retention system. Acknowledging that there is no perfect system, the editorial board believes that such a change could: “emancipate judges entirely from a process that requires them to raise gobs of money and end up beholden to the people and businesses that stand to gain or lose from court actions.”

We agree that it is time for a change, and that merit selection provides the best way of ensuring fair and impartial courts.

An editorial in the Birmingham News condemns Alabama’s system of judicial elections and supports a change to an appointment-retention system. The editorial looks at the recent poll by Justice at Stake, in which a majority of Republicans and Democrats asked said that they believed campaign donations significantly impact court rulings.

Noting Alabama’s reputation for having the most expensive judicial campaigns as well as the ease with which Alabama law allows special interests to disguise the money they give to judicial campaigns by going through political action committees, the editorial explains the trust problems judicial election fundraising is creating:

It’s a recipe for corruption in any arena, but it’s particularly corrosive when it comes to courts that are supposed to be impartial arbiters of justice. Even a decision with a firm basis in the law looks shady when the winning party bankrolled the judge.

We agree that the role of money in judicial elections adversely affects the public’s relationship with the court system. Merit Selection is a way to get judges out of the fundraising business and restore public confidence in the courts.

The Birmingham News reports that American Bar Association President — and Alabama attorney — Tommy Wells is sharply criticizing judicial elections.  According to Wells, judicial elections “amount to little more than attempts at influence peddling.”

Wells speaks from experience. Alabama is one of the few states — like Pennsylvania — that elect all judges in partisan contests.  Last year, the race for one seat on the Alabama Supreme Court cost five million dollars.  Wells opined:

“The amount of money that was spent was obscene, and amounted to more than is spent in the whole state for legal services for the poor.”

Remember, much of this money comes from lawyers and entities who later litigate before the judges they helped elect.  It’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business.  Merit Selection would do just that.

The Birmingham News reports that the 2008 Alabama Supreme Court race was the most expensive high court election last year.  The two candidates and third party groups spent a combined total of $5.3 million:

Total candidate spending was nearly $4.3 million – $2.5 million by [Deborah Bell] Paseur and $1.8 million by [Greg] Shaw, according to state campaign disclosures, including final accountings filed this week. Third-party groups spent at least $1 million more.

During the 2007 Pennsylvania elections, four candidates running for two spots on the Supreme Court raised a total of $7,846,478.  This does not include third party spending.  And, an out of state group active in Alabama this year, the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom, spent more than one million dollars on ads supporting one candidate.

What does all this mean for Pennsylvania in 2009?  We are electing one Supreme Court justice and five more judges for the intermediate appellate courts.  Will we be setting yet new records in the fundraising and spending games? Time will tell, and we’ll keep you posted.

The Birmingham News reported recently on the role of political action committees (PACs) in channeling contributions from various sources into the Alabama Supreme Court race.  PACs are set up to let various parties and interest groups pool their money.  The PAC appears as a campaign contributor, but the actual contributors’ names do not.

The system also makes it difficult for voters to figure out who financially backs candidates, David Lanoue [chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama] said. “That is meaningful information,” he said. “Donors have agendas.”

“Alabama needs to peel back the curtain so the average voter can know who is giving the money and which agenda it is likely to represent,” said Charlie Hall, of Justice At Stake.  In a recent post, Gavel Grab provides a closer look at funding for the Alabama Supreme Court race.

As we have previously noted, the Alabama Supreme Court race is becoming more expensive and increasingly negative.  The influence of large campaign contributions, through PACs or from direct donors, can be eliminated by replacing judicial elections with Merit Selection, a system that focuses on one’s qualifications as a judge, not on how much money one can raise.

The Birmingham News reports that the “relatively tranquil Alabama Supreme Court race turned last week toward more familiar territory of big spending, special-interest politics and attacks on the candidates.” What’s happening in Alabama should come as no surprise to those who watch state court elections.

The candidates are trading accusations about false and misleading polls and advertisments.  The amount of money spent on ads is steadily increasing, and an out-of-state group from Virgina, the same group that got involved in the 2007 Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, is spending money to advertise for one of the candidates.  Gavel Grab has an interesting report about this ad.

This election is following trends set in other states where judges are elected in partisan contests. Fundraising records are broken almost immediately after they are set, and third parties, including out-of-state groups, are getting involved in the elections.  Does using this system to select appellate court judges make any sense?