judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Clarion Ledger asserts that Mississippi’s judicial election system has been undermining confidence in the judiciary:

[T]his state’s judicial elections continue to demean the dignity of the court and to see voters manipulated by special interest groups seeking to hold sway over the judicial philosophies of the courts.

Noting the very expensive and divisive recent elections, the editorial decries the current system of electing judges:

The 2008 judicial elections in the state were a textbook case for why judges should be appointed, not elected. Instead, appellate court seats in Mississippi are like those in many other states.

They are doled out at a political price tag of up to $1 million per judge to candidates who will turn their heads to the sleazy campaign tactics that have come to dictate judicial elections.

2009 is a judicial election year in Pennsylvania.  What will the price tag be for the open seat on the Supreme Court?

There’s an old saying that in an election, someone wins and someone loses, but no one takes down the signs. Well, in addition to those signs hanging around, we have the spectre of campaigns raising funds to retire their debts. Winners and losers alike share this need, but special issues are raised when winning judicial candidates, who soon will be taking the bench, are in need of funds.

The ClarionLedger reports that recently elected Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Jim Kitchens must raise funds to pay off a campaign debt of $300,000. Lawyers across the state are being asked to contribute. Kitchens’ campaign manager Sam Hall, said the requests are not limited to lawyers. When asked about a phone bank fundraiser directed to lawyers, Hall said: “There is no fundraiser. . . . What we are having is normal campaign business.”

Hall further stated that contributions would not influence Kitchens on the Court, and he explained that Kitchens does not attend fundraisers or view contributor lists.

But we still think that a system that’s set up to have judicial campaigns raise money from lawyers and parties who will appear before them doesn’t make any sense. And it gets worse when the lawyers and potential parties are asked to contribute after the election. Now those contributors know that their money is going to help someone who will be sitting on the Court.

Whether or not a judge knows who contributed what when, this just doesn’t look right. We can understand why the majority of people believe campaign contributions influence courtroom decisions.

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?

A reader’s letter to the Clarion-Ledger decries the state of judicial elections in Mississippi and argues that it’s time for a change.  The reader notes that the elections have become more partisan, more expensive and have attracted more special interest participation in recent years:

Why are political parties, vested interest groups, and lobbyists interested in our state judgeships. Is our justice system now for sale to the highest bidder?

This is a question that many people are asking in states that elect judges.  And polls demonstrate a widely-shared concern that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making.

The letter closes with a challenge that voters in all judicial election states should consider:

If you or I should ever have a case before our Supreme Court, I would pray that the judges’ decisions would be based in law and not partisan politics.

It is time to appoint judges!

Gavel Grab reports that the candidates running for the Mississippi Supreme Court and third-party groups supporting them are spending big money.  Citing  the Jackson Clarion-Ledger , Gavel Grab notes that business interests and plaintiffs’ lawyers seem to be filling the coffers of the candidates.

In addition, the same paper earlier reported that “Political action committees are spending more on advertisements for those running for the state Supreme Court than any of those actually seeking the office.”  While the candidates claim not to be involved with these groups or authorizing their activities, allegations about collaboration have surfaced.

Look at what happens when judges have to run for election and raise money to suppor their campaigns. There’s a better way to select Supreme Court justices, a way that gets them out of this mess.  It’s Merit Selection.

We’re hearing calls for Merit Selection down in Mississippi. An editorial in the Clarion Ledger cites recent scandals and increasing campaign costs as reasons to consider moving away from electing judges. Lawyers in the state bar association and the Federalist Society are calling for reform, but there will need to be a big public education effort to convince the public: “the biggest hurdle is general Mississippi tradition of wanting to vote on everything and everybody.”

To combat this common argument against Merit Selection, the author argues:

The reality is voters don’t know very much about judicial candidates, or enough. We have a system that allows inordinate influence by special-interest money. Believe me, dear voters, you aren’t really picking judges. The major races are carefully choreographed: who runs, who gets financed. You just pull the levers.

We understand that it’s very difficult to change from an elective system, but this author points out in stark terms why voting for judges doesn’t really make sense.

Another Mississippi newspaper is warning about the effects of massive campaign donations on the justice dispensed in the state’s appellate courts. An editorial in the Greenwood Commonwealth considers recent trends in verdicts issued by the Mississippi Supreme Court, and suggests that campaign contributions might be influencing the Court’s decisions. “For the coming elections,” the paper warns, “voters should educate themselves on who is contributing to whom because that’s a good sign as to how they’ll rule if elected.”

The piece offers a solution that would remove any suggestion that campaign contributions influence verdicts: do away with elections for appellate judges.

What is needed on the court, of course, are fair-minded jurists who are not beholden to big contributors… This could be better accomplished through a system of appointing, rather than electing, appellate court judges.

Merit Selection does exactly that. Merit Selected judges don’t have to raise campaign funds, so any apperance of bias toward campaign donors is eliminated. It’s time to bring Merit Selection to Pennsylvania, so that our appellate judges can rule based on the law, free from any suggestion that they’re just following the money.

A June 29th editorial in Jackson, Mississippi’s Clarion-Ledger shows how wealthy interests on either side of a single issue – tort reform – have twisted elections for the state’s Supreme Court. These elections have become a million-dollar sparring ground, where big bank accounts battle to influence judicial policy, and the interests of ordinary citizens and impartial justice are consigned to the bleachers.

Both sides – plaintiffs’ attorneys and the business/medical community – have too much riding on the outcome of cases not to spend big bucks on these campaigns. Left out and ignored, however, are the poor, the voiceless and those who don’t have enough money for political action committees or lobbyists.

When judicial elections become multi-million dollar endeavors, winning a seat on the bench can become a fundraising contest. Smart, fair-minded and experienced candidates are locked out of the system if they can’t generate the level of donations necessary to compete.

Opponents of judicial selection reform like to present themselves as the champions of the people, fighting to preserve the rights of citizens. But often, what they’re really trying to protect is the ability of wealthy campaign donors to decide who makes it to the bench.

Merit Selection of appellate judges short-circuits the influence of big campaign donations. Because candidates are evaluated on their knowledge and experience, Merit Selection gives qualified people who can’t raise gobs of campaign cash a shot at becoming a judge. The appellate bench will be open to people from all backgrounds, and all areas of the state, with knowledge of and respect for the law as the primary criteria for membership.