We’ve been reporting (see, e.g, this post, and this one, and this one) about the increasingly nasty tone of the Supreme Court contest between Joan Orie Melvin and Jack Panella. A highlight has been the negative ads aired by each candidate. Some have charged the candidates with airing misleading ads. In fact, the candidates have pointed fingers themselves, accusing each other of crossing the line when it comes to these ads. Now, FactCheck.org highlights this campaign in a report entitled “Court Watch: Pennsylvania Slime.” Just another reason for Pennsylvania to give some more thought to whether electing judges in these expensive, partisan, divisive contests is the right way to go.
, Jack Panella
, Joan Orie Melvin
Last week, we wrote about the amount of money spent during the recent judicial election season on television ads, both by the candidates and by third parties. Now, FactCheck.org breaks down the elections by focusing on some of the most controversial ads of the season:
Another election, another set of bare-fisted battles for state Supreme Court seats. Think the presidential campaign ads were uncivil and misleading? Well. . . they were. But so were those put on the air by judicial candidates and their backers, who no longer blink at spending in the millions of dollars.
FactCheck.org looks at ads from the Supreme Court races in Missiissippi and Michigan, analyzing the claims made in the ads and calling out the misstatements and questionable claims.
Should millions of dollars and misleading ads be the hallmarks of judicial selection or is there a better way to choose appellate judges?
, judicial elections
, other states