Category Archives: judicial elections

CPI reports.

Item:

The Michigan Supreme Court is corrupted by “dark money,” secrecy and ideology.

So contends former Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Weaver, a Republican from Glen Arbor, who’s co-authored a book in which she alleges Michigan’s highest court often rules on behalf of special interest groups that bankroll judges’ election campaigns, as opposed to the merits of cases.

H/t Howard Bashman

Whodathunk it?

The Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia ruled unanimously that Hugh Caperton and his coal companies — Harman Mining and Sovereign Coal Sales — can pursue a lawsuit against the former A.T. Massey Coal Co. in a Virginia circuit court.

In a 27-page opinion released on Thursday morning, Virginia’s top court ruled the civil lawsuit can proceed. The same lawsuit was dismissed by the West Virginia Supreme Court three times.

“The [West Virginia] court determined that a forum selection clause in an agreement between the parties required that the suit be brought in Virginia,” the Virginia Supreme Court noted in its 5-0 decision.

Gavel Grab: “TV ad spending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race that concluded this week exceeded $1.1 million, and more than two-thirds of it came from conservative interest groups, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice reported on Thursday.”

This item appears at Gavel Grab.

Jim Gibson and Gregory Caldiera has posted this draft on SSRN (Journal of Empirical Legal Studies).  Here is the abstract:

Legal scholars have of late become quite worried about how citizens form their impressions of the fairness of courts. This concern reflects the changing environments of courts, especially elected state courts, and what might generally be termed the politicization of the judiciary. The purpose of this article is to assess the effectiveness of judicial recusals at rehabilitating a court/judge tainted by perceived conflicts of interest associated with campaign activities by litigants. Based on an experimental design embedded in a nationally representative sample, our data first confirm that direct campaign contributions undermine perceptions of fairness; but, unexpectedly, so, too, does independent support for the candidate. Most important, recusal does indeed restore some perceived fairness; unfortunately, the repair to public perceptions is not to the level enjoyed when no conflict of interest exists. In a post‐Citizens United world, these findings therefore point to significant threats to the legitimacy of elected state courts.

Michael Elllement has written this article in the Reynolds Court & Media Law Journal.  (You will have to flip through to get to the article)

Drake Law Review symposium:

Volume 60, No. 3 Spring 2012

NINTH ANNUAL
AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY SYMPOSIUM

Lawyers, Judges, and Money:  Evolving Legal Issues Surrounding Spending on Judicial Elections

Foreword
Hon. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Citizens United Impact on Judicial Elections
Erwin Chemerinsky
Rick Hasen
James Sample

The New Storm of Money and Politics Derail Judicial Retention Elections
Bert Brandenburg
Matt Berg

A Coin on the Tracks:  Can Big Money and Politics Derail Judicial Impartiality Through Election Spending?
Christine E. Branstad
David L. Phillips
Nathan A. Olson

The Futility of Contribution Limits in the Age of Super PACs
Anthony J. Gaughan

The Danger Inherent in the Public Perception that Justice is for Sale
Shira J. Goodman

Protecting the Administrative Judiciary from External Pressures:  A Call for Vigilance
Thomas A. Mayes

2010 Justice Kilbride Retention Election in Illinois
Whitney Woodward

National Law Journal: “An Ohio ethics rule that prohibits state judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions does not violate the First Amendment, a federal judge determined on December 10. At the same time, the judge found that the rule should not apply to candidates’ communications with family members.”

Columbus Dispatch:

William M. O’Neill, a former appellate judge and a Democrat, held a 4-point lead over incumbent Justice Robert R. Cupp, a Republican who has served on the high court since 2007. Cupp conceded the race last night….

A major theme of O’Neill’s campaign was that “money and judges don’t mix.” He proposes charging a $10 fee on every lawsuit filed in Ohio, which would raise money for judicial candidates and prevent them from taking contributions from donors who he says could influence the judges.

Under O’Neill’s plan, Supreme Court candidates would receive $1 million each, with lesser amounts provided to lower-court candidates.

Last weekend, an Ohio State Bar Association committee asked O’Neill to remove materials from his website that implied justices could be bought by campaign contributions. He refused.

Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center have issued this release.

Bob Barnes reports for WaPo.

Gavel Grab: “In the run-up to the November elections, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice reported on Thursday that changing spending patterns in judicial elections may signal a new phase in the hard-fought battle to influence the nation’s state courts. While court candidates  spent more than $4.6 million in TV advertisements during the primary season, some states could actually see reduced spending due to the cumulative effects of a decade of record-setting spending, the groups said in a press release.”