judgesonmerit.org

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.

In a report about the current judicial elections in Alabama, The Press-Register notes:

With millions of dollars coursing into the campaign coffers of candidates for Alabama’s appellate courts, an age-old question has resurfaced: What should judges do to remove doubt about their impartiality?

It’s not just reform groups and the public who are concerned about the influence of money in judicial elections. The report explains that some judicial candidates and bar association leaders also believe that steps should be taken to eliminate the perception — and perhaps the reality — that campaign money can affect judicial decision-making.

Some of these folks are talking about whether recusal should be mandated in cases involving campaign donors.  This isn’t a new issue and it’s not unique to Alabama — we’re still waiting to hear whether the United States Supreme Court will take up the West Virginia case of Caperton v. Massey which poses similar questions.

This is just another example demonstrating why money and selecting appellate judges shouldn’t mix.

Adding to Alabama’s already expensive and nasty Supreme Court election, a Virginia-based organization has begun a series of television advertisements promoting its preferred judicial candidate, spending over $1 million to broadcast ads praising candidate Greg Shaw.  The Press-Register reports that, in response to the organization’s ads, candidate Deborah Bell Paseur’s campaign wants Shaw to demand that the third-party organization either disclose its contributors or stop broadcasting the advertisements.

‘The whole thing we’re interested in is finding out where this money is coming from,’ [Paseur's campaign manager Marion] Steinfels said. ‘Who is funding these ads?’

Factcheck.org takes a closer look at the Alabama race, carefully scrutinizing the role of the third-party organization.  Gavel Grab is also following this development.

Last year, the same Virginia-based organization broadcast similar ads leading up to the most recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court race, urging voters to “thank” one of the candidates.   Ultimately, because the ads never explicitly advocated for the election of a specific candidate, and were considered “issue ads”, the group was able to avoid disclosing its contributors.

Judicial selection and campaign money: a bad mix.