Justice at Risk

 
New data from independent researchers reveal growing influence of contributions on state supreme court judges. It has been 15 years since comprehensive data have been compiled and studied regarding the relationship between campaign contributions and state judicial elections.

Justice at Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions, by Joanna Shepherd, a law professor at Emory University, analyzes data from 2,345 business-related state supreme court published opinions from all 50 states in 2010-2012 and more than 175,000 contribution records, and reveals a growing relationship between money and how state supreme court justices rule in business-related matters.

ACS sponsored the study to discover whether more money being funneled into state supreme court elections is placing fair and impartial courts at risk.

The report focused on business contributions and their impact on state supreme court decisions because when direct and indirect contributions are taken into account, business interests dominate spending on judicial elections. Thus, while business interests and other groups contributed roughly equal amounts to candidates in state supreme court races from 2000-2009, business organizations dominated independent expenditures in those races, accounting for more than 90 percent of paid television advertising.

To learn more about this report—particularly the data that it draws from—visit the special reports and collaborations page of the National Institute for Money in State Politics. We strongly encourage interested parties to review the data, study the issue further, and contribute to and expand the important conversation about fair courts. NIMSP is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states. The organization encourages transparency and promotes “independent investigation of state-level campaign contributions by journalists, academic researchers, public-interest groups, government agencies, policymakers, students and the public at large.”

 

Map of State Court Judicial Selection Methods

 


 

ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY

PODCAST: "Money, Politics and State Courts"

The Brennan Center's Alicia Bannon discussed findings on campaign contributions and political tactics in the 2012 election cycle from The New Politics of Judicial ElectionsFormer Justice James Nelson talked about his experiences as a member of the Montana Supreme Court and his views on the current state of judicial elections. And Emory University's Joanna Shepherd discussed the findings of ACS's own Justice At Risk report on the relationship between campaign contributions by special interests and judicial decisions in cases involving those interests.

VIDEO: "Justice at Risk: The Influence of Politics and Money on State Courts"

Fair and impartial state courts play a vital role in our democracy, but a rising tide of high stakes campaigns featuring massive campaign contributions and contentious politics pose a threat to them. Leading experts discussed the results of two important new studies on state court elections, the role campaign contributions play in them and the effects contributions can have on judicial decisions.

VIDEO: "Money, Politics, and State Courts: A Threat to a Fair and Impartial Judiciary?"

Important new empirical research sponsored by ACS establishes a correlation between political contributions to state court judges and judicial decisions favoring business interests. The 2012 election cycle shows that corporate contributions to judicial candidates continue to grow, and partisanship in state court elections is accelerating. A panel of expert academics and judges examined the scope of this problem and proposed solutions.

VIDEO: "The View from the Bench: Judicial Campaigns and Public Confidence in the Courts"

Thirty-nine states elect their judges in some fashion, whether as an initial selection process or through retention voting. These elections have the propensity to turn judges into politicians, at the potential cost of public skepticism regarding judicial impartiality. What can be done to address the perception that justice can be bought? This panel of state court judges shared their experiences and recommendations about how to enhance public confidence in the courts.


 

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Op-Eds

  • The Missoulian, “Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality," by James C. Nelson, retired Montana Supreme Court justice, July 30, 2013 (picked up by 1 outlet)

News

  • The Week, "Welcome to Tennessee, Where Lawmakers Are Trying to Kneecap Judges," by Andrew Cohen, January 29, 2014

  • Truthout, "Four Years After Citizens United: Is Campaign Cash Buying Justice in State Courts?" by Mike Ludwig, January 22, 2014

  • The Texas Tribune, "Brandenburg and Lyle: The TT Interview," by Ross Ramsey, November 27, 2013

  • The Atlantic, "An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections," by Andrew Cohen, September 3, 2013

  • The Washington Post, “When businesses give judges money, they usually get the rulings they want,” by Dylan Matthews, June 11, 2013

  • McClatchy Company Washington DC Bureau, “Business donations to judges’ campaigns often equal friendly rulings,” byMichael Doyle, June 11, 2013 (picked up by 44 outlets)

 
and more stories from...
 

 

ACSblog CONVERSATION

 


 

RELATED RESOURCES


Related Articles & Reports