Private: Not My Problem? Getting Americans to Care About Judicial Selection and Money in Politics

by Nanya Springer

Say the words “judicial selection” to average Americans, and their eyes may very well glaze over.  But tell them the story of Wendy Baggett ‒ a woman whose three-day-old baby died because her doctor neglected to take her off of blood pressure medication during her pregnancy ‒ and a spark of concern may appear in those dull pupils.  Then explain that a jury sided with Baggett in her medical malpractice claim against the doctor, only to be overturned by business-backed judges on the Alabama Supreme Court, and that concern may transform into shock, curiosity and perhaps, eventually, action.

It’s well understood that telling human stories is more effective than talking about political, economic or societal problems in the abstract.  That’s why Life of the Law, a bi-weekly podcast series, focuses on compelling, human-driven stories instead of merely analyzing legal arguments and dissecting Supreme Court rulings. 

The story of Baggett is a true one, used to exemplify how the practice of electing judges affects people from all walks of life.  As explained in the podcast, in states where judges are forced to campaign for the bench, courts are becoming increasingly hostile to tort plaintiffs and to criminal defendants.  This makes sense; campaigns cost money, business interests have plentiful funds from which to donate, and judges, whether consciously or unconsciously, tend to side with the interests of those who helped them win their increasingly expensive elections.  (In criminal cases, judges are often attacked by their business-backed opponents for being “soft on crime” when they side with defendants, merely because it’s an easy attack.)

Importantly, the American public has taken notice: Three-quarters of those surveyed believe receiving campaign donations influences judges’ decisions.  The fact that judicial elections diminish public trust in the judiciary was one of the factors considered by the Supreme Court last week when it upheld a Florida law prohibiting judges from directly soliciting campaign donations.  But the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t apply to states where direct solicitations are permitted, nor does it tackle broader problems with campaign financing ‒ particularly the increasing influence of money over the voices of voters.

Justice Sue Bell Cobb (Ret.), a former member of the Alabama Supreme Court and an outspoken advocate for judicial selection reform, is another who is bringing life to the realities of this seemingly mundane issue.  She describes judicial elections from the perspective of a candidate, calling the whole practice “tawdry” and “like legalized extortion,” adding, “There was absolutely no way that I could do the job that was required for the people of Alabama and raise the amount of money that it was going to take to be re-elected.”

There are undoubtedly hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories across the country.  These are the stories that must be told in order for the average American citizen to appreciate the scope of this problem, and to stand up to it.

Access to Justice, Campaign Finance, Criminal Justice