judgesonmerit.org

The report indicates that campaign contributions for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 Louisiana Courts of Appeal elections came primarily from lawyers, law firms, lobbyists and candidates themselves. These sources combined supplied sixty-three percent, sixty-eight percent, and fifty-six percent of all funds in 2008, 2009, and 2010 respectively. Similarly, in contested races, candidates received sixty-one percent of funding from these same top donors. For self-funded candidates, spending over the three years added up to almost $1.4 million. Meanwhile, lawyers and law firms donated $1.5 million to campaigns across the board.

These top two funding sources are of particular importance to PMC. First, when candidates are expected to contribute significantly to their own campaigns, those with less money but potentially better qualifications are prevented from entering the race. As a result, the public unknowingly loses the opportunity to have a fairer and more qualified judiciary. Second, when law firms and lawyers donate nearly forty-five percent, $1.1 million, to candidates running for an open seat, elected judges risk pressure from donors regarding decisions and, even if they resist that pressure, public skepticism of impartiality, if not outright distrust. Raising money for campaigns is a problem in all states that elect judges. By taking money out of the equation, Merit Selection increases public faith in the judiciary and gives qualified candidates, who could not otherwise afford to, a better opportunity to reach the bench.

Louisiana is electing a new Supreme Court justice today, and both candidates for the seat as well as outside observers are unhappy about the tone of the election. WWLTV reports: ” A political race between Jimmy Kuhn and Greg Guidry has turned nasty, but this is a race for the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in theory, a race that’s supposed to be above this.”

Each candidate has complaints about tactics used to support his opponent, but they do agree that the current situation threatens to damage the court itself:

And what started out as a race for Louisiana’s highest judicial office looks like standard Louisiana politics.

Kuhn said he found the nasty tone of the race “extremely” disappointing. Guidry agreed, “I’m surprised and disappointed.”

The Louisiana Organization for Judicial Excellence is calling for change, urging a new way to select judges. Chip Wagar explained:

I think the whole process is degrading to the judges that are involved. . . . What we would like to see is merit selection of judges, where we don’t have to go through this whole process.

This makes sense to us.

Louisiana, like Pennsylvania, is one of only six states that elects all of its judges in partisan elections.  The Shreveport Times editorialized this week in favor of eliminating elections and moving to a merit system, at least for local courts.  Although we are advocating for a change only at the appellate level in Pennsylvania, the editorial points out many of the problems with electing judges.  For example, the money:

Much of the cash for mounting a campaign comes from the legal community and much of the campaign debt is later retired by these same lawyers. Seems like the seeds of a conflict of interest to us when the attorneys in your courtroom may be big contributors.

That’s what we’ve been saying about elections here in Pennsylvania.  Touting the benefits of Merit Selection, the editorial continues:

An alternate system of appointing judges in theory would make selections based upon qualifications rather than political or social connections. Local bar associations or review commissions would look only at lawyers with established minimum years experience and assess their competency with expert eyes. A merit system also reduces the influence of politics and money in judicial elections.

We wish them good luck in Louisiana, and we hope the people of Pennsylvania will get the chance to decide whether to change how we pick our appellate judges.

An opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson points out that four states are in the midst of partisan elections to pick judges for their highest courts. In calling for a move away from partisan election of judges, the author highlights the problem of “judicial candidates [receiving] contributions from firms or attorneys who will potentially present cases, or at least play a role, in their prospective courtrooms”

We agree with the author when she says that we need to reform the way we select judges. Merit Selection gets appellate judges out of the fundraising business. It will help to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary, free from the appearance of bias.

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)