judgesonmerit.org

Peter Hardin at Gavel Grab reports that for the first time Iowa will make interviews of state Supreme Court candidates available to the public through a live stream on the internet. The Des Moines Register announced this change along with the commission’s plan to interview applicants the week of January 24. Iowa uses a merit selection system for selecting its judges, and the change in the selection commission’s procedure is an attempt to increase openness in the judicial selection process.

Some have argued that the interviews are uninteresting and viewers will be bored. We disagree. Even if the questions during interviews are about procedural and technical issues, opening candidate interview to the public gives people an insight into the process and a sense of the candidates being considered for the bench. It gives people the opportunity to see for themselves that: “[t]he applicants are competent lawyers who are going to have hard questions asked by other lawyers.” One commission member, Guy Cook, believes opening the interviews to the public allows people to determine for themselves whether the commission acts in a “careful, thoughtful way to nominate the best qualified.” It demonstrates that transparency is a priority, and improves what is already a good judicial selection system.

Over at Gavel Grab, Peter Hardin draws attention to the costly judicial elections underway in Alabama. Noting that Alabama has the most expensive Supreme Court elections in the country, Hardin examines an editorial that appeared in the Press-Register criticizing judicial elections.

The editorial opens with a strong critique of judicial elections in Alabama: “As long as state Supreme Court justices have to raise money – sometimes lots of it – to win their seats, justice in Alabama is going to look like it’s for sale.” It goes on to describe how judicial candidates go about raising money in the same way as candidates for other offices – going on the campaign trail, shaking hands, and actively fundraising. This creates the perception that judges can be influenced by campaign donations and political preferences. The editorial notes that Alabama’s rules regarding political action committees worsen the perception problem because they allow candidates and donors to hide the source of donations. The editorial echoes Justice at Stake executive director Bert Brandenburg’s concerns over judicial fundraising:

“As long as we’re asking more judges to dial for dollars from the people who appear before them, then the more we’re asking judges to act like Huey Long on the campaign trail and then turn around and act like Solomon in the court room.”

We agree that judges should not be in the fundraising business, and that their presence there diminishes public confidence in an impartial judiciary. We believe that a change to the selection process is necessary, and that merit selection is the way to ensure fair and impartial courts. The editorial concludes with a concern that we share in Pennsylvania:

“As long as the litmus test for Alabama Supreme Court justices is how well they can fund a political campaign, then the state’s going to be stuck with the reputation – or at least the perception – that it tolerates tainted justice.

Over at Gavel Grab, Peter Hardin takes a look at various judicial elections and ballot initiatives happening around the country. In doing so, Hardin provides examples of the weaknesses inherent in judicial elections.

In Georgia, the Secretary of State is looking at the possibility that a candidate for the state supreme court may have violated election law. A Huffington Post commentary denounces the amount of money involved in the campaign for seats on the Ohio Supreme Court, referring to the money as “scandalous ‘justice for sale’ financing.” Pointing to the lack of attention typically given to judicial elections, the commentary attempts to bring to light the: “wave of campaign cash and independent expenditures by businesses and organizations whose interests are tied up in cases before the Ohio Supreme Court.”

In Nevada, the struggle continues over the ballot initiative to switch from judicial elections to merit selection. Meanwhile, an editorial in the Detroit Free Press asks Michigan voters to approve a constitutional convention to dispose of judicial elections. Referring to “the farcical exercise known as judicial elections,” the editorial explains that the election system is “dysfunctional” and dominated by campaign contributions from interested parties. The editorial argues that, the system:

tends to work poorly for ordinary citizens. Michigan’s ostensibly independent judiciary is increasingly larded with apparatchiks who owe their initial appointments to partisan loyalty and are virtually immune from accountability thereafter.

Judges are different from other government offices, and the process to select them should reflect these differences. The use of ugly or illegal campaign tactics, the perception that justice is for sale, and the involvement of special interest money are all reasons that judicial elections do not work to create fair and impartial courts. Merit selection addresses these concerns and provides a way to select an independent judiciary.

Over at Gavel Grab, Peter Hardin notes the growing trend of expensive judicial elections.

This trend is in part due to an increased expenditure on television ads. Referring to information contained in a news release complied by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Justice at Stake Campaign, Hardin explains that television ads are now being used in six states with upcoming judicial elections. Through October 6, more than $2 million has been spent on air time for judicial elections. Another indicator of this spending trend is that Minnesota has seen increased “partisan politicking.” Minnesota has traditionally been a state that avoided expensive Supreme Court elections.

The news release cites Charles Hall, a spokesperson for the Justice at Stake Campaign in Washington as summing up the 2010 judicial campaign season: “The new politics of judicial elections continues to reach states that haven’t experienced it before, and that’s been the story of the 2010 campaign.”

We have long been concerned about the role of money in judicial elections, and as the amount of money involved grows so do the reasons to worry. With more states engaging in expensive judicial elections, the problem is only getting worse. Expensive judicial campaigns create the perception that justice is for sale. Merit selection is a way to take money out of the equation and maintain judicial independence.