judgesonmerit.org

  In late January, a consumer watchdog group called Texas Watch filed ethics complaints against three Texas Supreme Court Justices. The complaints allege that the justices violated state judicial ethics rules by using campaign contributions to reimburse themselves for personal travel.

  While we’ll need to wait for the results of the investigation, these justices are far from the first to be accused of improperly dipping into a large campaign war chest. Under Merit Selection, judicial campaign contributions, and the temptation to misuse them, are eliminated.

More information about the ethics complaints is available here and here.

  The West Virginia Supreme Court is embroiled in a major scandal, involving a multi-million dollar election, and multiple recusals from the trial of a big campaign donor. The Huntington Herald-Dispatch sees the whole mess as a clear reason for the state to adopt a Merit Selection system. In their words, “a judiciary independent of elections is the best safeguard against the influence of… money.” Read the complete editorial here.

The results of a Tulane University study suggest that, at least in Louisiana, campaign contributions to judges are a good way to get an advantage in the court room. The researchers looked at how often each justice on the state’s Supreme Court voted for plaintiffs and defendants. Then, they looked to see if those votes tended to change when a campaign donor was among the parties or lawyers involved.

Not surprisingly, justices voted in favor of campaign donors far more often than non-donors. It also appears that the tendency increased with the size of the donation. To read more about campaign money and its influence on justice in Louisiana, click here. (free, requires registration)