Judicial campaigns and elections

  • August 11, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    The Editorial Board of The Washington Post calls for a removal of politics from judicial selection, “[t]he application of due process and the maintenance of Americans’ civil rights should be more isolated from the pressures of majoritarian elections.”

    Ari Berman writes for The Nation on the recent decision from the U.S.  District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina that denies a preliminary injunction to block provisions of one of the strictest voting laws in the country.   

    The Atlantic’s James Hamblin argues against a Florida law that bans doctors from talking about firearm safety with their patients.

    Abbe R. Gluck writes in Politico on the inconsistencies in the interpretation of Affordable Care Act found between the 2012 constitution challenge and the recent Halbig case. These inconsistencies seem to challenge the Halbig verdict and its reasoning.

    In The New York Times, Sonja B. Starr discusses the unfair and potentially unconstitutional practice of evidence-based sentencing. 

  • August 4, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    In The Washington Post, Maurice Possley of The Marshall Project writes that new evidence raises doubts about the 2004 Texas execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. “This case could be the first to show conclusively that an innocent man was put to death in the modern era of capital punishment.”

    Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law for the University of Chicago,  former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter as well as Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter, explains in The Daily Beast that the flood of judicial rulings holding bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional are not the result of public opinion shifts. Rather, the Supreme Court opened the door to these decisions long before support for gay marriage became more mainstream.

    Collin Eaton, writing for The Houston Chronicle, reports that BP has asked the Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings on the approved settlement class for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. The petition asserts that claimants should have to show that their losses were directly tied to the spill.

    The Tennessean’s Brian Haas reports on the Tennessee Supreme Court retention election, noting the large amount of money conservative groups have spent to campaign against the justices.

    Christine Vestal of Stateline discusses the challenges many state health insurance exchanges face in light of the Halbig v. Burwell ruling. Consumers in 36 states risk losing future premium subsidies if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Affordable Care Act opponents. 

  • February 11, 2014
     
    The American Bar Association Standards Review Committee is considering a recommendation that the ABA no longer prohibit law students from receiving money for internships and externships. Karen Sloan of The National Law Journal has the story.
     
    In their debut article for The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald examine the National Security Agency’s controversial role in targeting terror suspects for lethal drone strikes and the effectiveness of geolocating technology.
     
    Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins created the nation's first Conviction Integrity Unit. In an interview with NPR’s Melissa Block, Watkins discusses the 87 overturned convictions in the U.S. in 2013 and what is being done in Dallas County to prevent miscarriages of justice.
     
    With the U.S. Supreme Court returning to session on February 24, the justices could soon rule on whether legislative prayer violates the Establishment Clause. Michael Kirkland at UPI breaks down Town of Greece v. Galloway.
  • June 17, 2013
    Guest Post
    by Liz Seaton, Acting Executive Director, Justice at StakeJustice at Stake is a nonpartisan, nonprofit campaign working to keep America’s courts fair and impartial.

    With its new “Justice at Risk” report, the American Constitution Society documents a correlation between big judicial election spending by U.S. businesses and favorable rulings from elected state courts. The report raises questions that are familiar, and they are troubling.
     
    The American public insists that courts be impartial, with no special favors for campaign spenders, so that everyone gets a fair day in court. But confidence in the impartiality of our courts has eroded as business and special interest spending on judicial elections soared in the last decade.
     
    “Justice at Risk” offers a statistical analysis that updates what we know about business interest donations to state supreme court candidates and judicial decisions that followed, specifically in the years since Citizens United:
     

    - “The more campaign contributions from business interests justices receive, the more likely they are to vote for business litigants appearing before them in court.”

    - If a justice’s campaign gets half of its contributions from business groups, then the justice would be expected to favor business interests by voting their way almost two-thirds of the time.

    - The empirical relationship identified in the study between campaign contributions and justices’ voting exists “only in partisan and nonpartisan systems; there is no statistically significant relationship between money and voting in retention election systems,” when a justice stands in a yes-or-no contest with no opponent.

    - For justices affiliated with the Democratic Party, the relationship between business contributions and voting is stronger than for justices affiliated with the GOP.

     
    These results add to the debate about the critical need for reforms to keep the influence of campaign cash out of the courtroom.
     
  • April 5, 2013

    by E. Sebastian Arduengo

    Leave it to The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board to attack what may be the most rational approach in this country for selecting judges in favor of an approach that leaves the judiciary vulnerable to the same kind of unspoken quid pro quo influence that plagues the political branches of government.

    Missouri has long had one of the one of the best non-partisan judicial appointment plans in the country. Under the plan, which has since been adopted at least partially by 34 states, a non-partisan commission (usually with close ties to the state bar) reviews candidates for a judicial vacancy, and produces a list of people from which the governor can make an appointment. If the governor doesn’t make an appointment, the selection committee can put a judge on the bench itself. The only popular “check” on the process is a retention election that is typically held once the judge has completed one year of service.

    The main criticism of this method of selecting judges is that it gives state bar associations, and plaintiff’s lawyers in particular, too much power in the nominations process, while voters effectively have no input on the people who will take the bench. This argument has been the clarion call of the Journal, and it was brought up again in this recent editorial, with the outrageous claim that Pennsylvania’s recent moves to become the latest state to adopt the Missouri Plan amounted to “the political class … using a political scandal to grab more power.”

    Predictably, the Journal glossed over the nature of the scandal prompting Pennsylvania to consider switching from its current system of elections for judges – one of the biggest in the state’s history. It resulted in the resignation of state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, after she was found guilty of using state employees to run her reelection campaign. One of her sisters, a former state Senator, is already serving prison time after pleading guilty to using state employees to work on her own and Melvin’s campaigns, then forging documents to cover it up.