Alaskan Lawsuit Challenges Judicial Selection System
August 31, 2009
Before she left office, Governor Sarah Palin was presented with a Hobson’s choice (or two) for one of her appointments to the state’s Supreme Court. She is, as most people know, deeply committed to the pro-life movement, not least because one of her sons is a special needs child. Like many Alaskans, she loves her state’s beauty but also wants to see reasonable development of its natural resources rather than simply locking them up.
But the state’s judicial selection commission gave her the choice of a noted pro-choice activist or a noted pro-environment activist. And there’s no reason to think that matters will be any easier for new Governor Sean Parnell as he faces a new vacancy on the Alaska Supreme Court.
Now, three Alaskans are taking matters into their own hands and showing some Alaskan practicality and good sense by challenging the judicial selection process as giving far too much power to lawyers.
As the lead attorney for the plaintiffs said, this case is about equality under the law. “‘The key point here as far as the constitutional issue is concerned is the equal right to vote,’ he said. ‘There’s no justification for lawyers to have some privileged position in selecting members of the judiciary. For anyone wanting fair and impartial judges, the last people who should be put on a nominating commission are representatives of the bar association, he said. ”
I couldn’t agree more. But the article goes further to describe the practical impact behind systems of merit selection:
“The trial lawyers’ bread and butter depends on liberal rulings on personal injury cases,” [the plaintiffs' attorney] said. “They have a direct financial interest in who is a judge. And if they are able to elect their fellow trial lawyers to the commission, they’ve got a really privileged position and ability to line their own pockets.”
Plain speaking, Alaska-style. We need more of that in the Lower 48.
It’s ironic that it takes a lawsuit to change the appointment of judges who will themselves have to rule on the lawsuit. But that’s just another problem that arises when the system is merit selection, rather than judicial election.
Lifting The Rock On ACORN
August 28, 2009
Matthew Vadum at the American Spectator has a great Special Report on ACORN that details investigations over voter registration fraud and various other illegal activities by the liberal activist network that is key to Democrat political prospects in many key states. According to the report, one top ACORN operative in Nevada - where ACORN registered Mickey Mouse - has cut a plea deal with prosecutors and will soon testify against higher-ups in the organization.
Elsewhere, Vadum writes, former ACORN employees are facing trial on election fraud charges in Pennsylvania; a Democratic prosecutor in Cleveland, OH is investigating ACORN after a grand jury indicted a man for voting illegally after ACORN registered him multiple times; and the Louisiana AG is also sniffing around.
All of this, plus ACORN’s myriad other sleazy activities, seem to back up the conclusion of an investigative report released recently by Congressman Darrell Issa:
ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.
More On Dean’s “Plain And Simple Truth”
August 28, 2009
A Washington Times editorial picks up on former DNC Chair Howard Dean’s admission that the “plain and simple truth” is Democrats shunned medical liability reform as part of health care legislation over fear of their powerful contributors in the trial bar. Money graph:
“Would-be reformers who refuse to stop lawsuit abuse give lie to their claims to be putting patients first. Mr. Dean’s candor should awaken congressional Democrats. The public won’t trust them to reform health care until they stop kowtowing to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who treat them as political chattel.”
Dean Admits Democrats Are Afraid Of The Trial Bar
August 26, 2009
In an extraordinary moment of candor, Howard Dean, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and onetime Democratic candidate for president, admitted Democrat majorities in Congress left medical liability reform out of health care legislation out of fear of angering their powerful patrons among the trial bar. NAM’s Shopfloor blog has the audio, but here’s the money quote:
“The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers … and that is the plain and simple truth.”
Tiger Joyce at Americans for Tort Reform had a piece in yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily outlining the reasons why tort reform is essential to any real effort to curb health care costs. The experience in two states makes a compelling case.
- In Massachusetts, 83% of physicians polled by the Massachusetts Medical Society say that fear of being sued led them to practice defensive medicine. Doctors surveyed said about one out of every eight people hospitalized were there to avoid lawsuits and 18% to 28% of tests, procedures and referrals were ordered to keep the trial bar at bay. All of this adds an estimated $1.4 billion to annual medical costs.
- In Texas, which adopted medical liability reform several years ago, liability insurance for doctors has fallen by 27% and more than 14,000 doctors either started or resumed practicing medicine in the state.
So why are Democrats in Congress so afraid to take on the trial lawyers? The “plain and simple truth:” $$$. In the last election cycle, lawyers and law firms funneled nearly $127 million to congressional candidates - about 80% to Democrats. That was more than six times the amount contributed by the much-maligned pharmaceutical industry. (Thanks, as always, to opensecrets.org for compiling these figures)
In addition to being a politician, Howard Dean is also an M.D., so he’s intimately aware of the influence greedy trial lawyers can exert over apprehensive physicians. Dr. Dean deserves credit for speaking truth to power, but the real “plain and simple truth” was left unsaid: Health care reform without medical liability reform is doomed to failure.
Missouri considers banned deceptive ads
August 25, 2009
Earlier this month, I applauded a federal judge’s ruling to uphold Louisiana’s rules prohibiting deceptive lawyer ads. Similar rules are under consideration in Missouri according to Travis Akin of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch in an op-ed published earlier this week.
He writes:
The Board of Governors of the Missouri Bar will soon be considering new rules to tighten up regulations on personal injury lawyer advertising, a move many law firms are fighting.
The rules include bolstering the visibility of a required disclaimer and banning the use of celebrities in lawyer ads.
Akin laments Illinois’s unwillingness to take similar action:
While the Show Me State is actively refining its rules, Illinois has done very little to regulate personal injury lawyer advertising.
Illinois television viewers are treated to a barrage of ads that go far beyond informing people of their rights. Many of these ads almost dare viewers to file a lawsuit even if they have not been injured.
I stand with Akin in hoping that Illinois can follow in Missouri and Louisiana’s footsteps in curbing deceptive advertising.
ACORN Watch: Keep Them Out Of The Census
August 19, 2009
The Institute for Policy Innovation produced this 60 second clip that is being aired on satellite radio.
From the email that accompanied it:
Should ACORN Help the Census Bureau Count Americans?
The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Dr. Merrill Matthews says not if accuracy is the goal.
The federal government is partnering with outside organizations to provide some manpower so the Census Bureau can do its 10-year count of Americans.
Much depends on an accurate count, so it’s extremely important the government use upright organizations with unblemished records.
So why’s it turning to the community-organizing group known as ACORN? The organization has already taken millions in taxpayer dollars, with more coming.
According to various news reports, ACORN:
- Is under investigation in at least 14 states;
- Admitted to more than 400,000 fraudulent vote registrations in 2008; and
- Is facing IRS tax liens for nearly $1 million.
These days the Census isn’t just about numbers, but money and power. We should never let ACORN handle Census numbers … when it really counts.
Activists On Michigan Supreme Court
August 18, 2009
Once again, it matters who sits on a state’s Supreme Court.
This AP story (printed in the Chicago Tribune) notes that Michigan drivers will have to pay about $20 extra this year just to pay for a recent decision of the Michigan Supreme Court.
As the story notes,
The court last month voted 4-3 to force the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association to fully reimburse insurance companies for two brain-damaged men’s round-the-clock nursing care.
The association of no-fault insurers, which was created in 1978 to spread unlimited medical and rehabilitation expenses for severely injured crash victims among all motorists, compensates insurers once claims exceed $460,000.
* * *
Republican Justice Robert Young Jr. and two other GOP dissenters called the ruling “an expensive mistake for which every policyholder in Michigan will pay.” The MCCA said it raised the yearly assessment on motorists from $104 to $124 in anticipation of the decision — a 19 percent increase instead of what would have been a 4 percent jump to $109.
So what does this have to do with judicial elections?
As writer David Eggert noted, “The decision is an example of the importance of last November’s state Supreme Court election, when Democrat Diane Hathaway unseated Republican incumbent Clifford Taylor. Two days before leaving the bench, Taylor joined in a 4-3 ruling in favor of the MCCA. When Hathaway took over, the court reconsidered the case and ruled the other way.” In the minds of many of us here, Hathaway’s election marked a victory for judicial activists.
But the basic point is that it matters who sits on a state’s Supreme Court. And that’s why the people, rather than the trial lawyers, should get to decide who does.
ACORN Watch: Organizers Accused Of Voter Fraud Protest Lenders Accused Of Non-Compliance
August 14, 2009
HousingWire.com reported today that ACORN is planning to protest several services that it claims “aren’t complying with the guidelines of the Making Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). ACORN is calling these non-compliant services, “Home Wreckers.”
This news came on the same day that the Las Vegas Sun published an interview with former Nevada Governor Bob List in which he had this to say about the state’s initiative process:
“It’s always been a part of a democratic republic to have initiatives come up from the grass roots. I think that there have been some abuses, though. … The ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) organization was exhibit A in that regard.”
Continuing with the theme, the Washington Examiner ran an op-ed today in which the VP of the National Association of Chiefs of Police recalled other dubious activities:
“In the past, ACORN officials admitted to submitting fraudulent voter registration forms in Ohio and press reports confirmed that ACORN submitted hundreds of fraudulent voter registration forms in Kansas City, Missouri, forcing local officials to wade through fraudulent voter registrations, potentially disenfranchising legitimate voters.”
Whether or not the lenders in question have been non-compliant, it is ridiculous that a questionable group like ACORN is leading such a charge. It’s naked hypocrisy on ACORN’s part. Sadly, according to the Examiner piece, Congress still apparently isn’t sure that ACORN should be eliminated from any involvement in the 2010 Census.
The fact is that ACORN has sprouted into a seedling of corruption and deceit. Without a congressional smack down on this sham of an organization, it will likely grow into a sequoia of sleaze that will undermine not just fair and honest census, but fair and honest elections as well.
Opposition To Judicial Elections Ignores Reality
August 12, 2009
Yesterday, Shira of JudgesOnMerit.org praised a Huffington Post op-ed by a retired federal judge which proclaimed that the election of judges is unacceptable and akin to an American Icon contest. Specifically, Shira decries the “lack of relevant information available to voters.”
As I discussed back in June, Shira and Sarokin’s preferred alternative-judicial selection-suffers from an even more impenetrable lack of information, and therefore accountability. At the time I praised the Wall Street Journal’s recognition of necessary reforms to Tennessee’s merit selection process:
That reform, along with requiring the commission to come out from behind closed doors and meet in public, is ‘a good first step toward bringing transparency and accountability to those judging the judges.’
All sides of this debate can agree that there have always been “unseemly” interests seeking to influence the outcomes of judicial decisions. Neither system can extinguish this phenomenon. The question is which provides better accountability. Unelected boards operating in sometimes near-secret conditions can hardly be a better alternative to public elections-even if many people don’t take the time to study all the available information on their candidates.
If we take Shira’s position to its logical conclusion, shouldn’t we stop electing other local officials too? Certainly the election of school board members, mayors, and city councilmen must suffer from the same information shortages and ugly politicking. If judicial selection proponents have such little faith in the American voters, why bother with democracy at all?
Legal Reform Boosts Growth More Than Gov’t Stimulus
August 12, 2009
This week, an op-ed in the The Columbian (a daily in Washington state), pointed out how legal reform in Texas has contributed to its relative success during our nation’s economic downturn.
Legal reform advocates, particularly medical malpractice reformers, have long pointed to Texas as a model of what works to get doctors–and other businesses–to set up shop and stay in the Lone Star State.
Here is a taste:
“[N]ew businesses and doctors have flooded into the state in the wake of the lawsuit abuse reform legislation, which capped non-economic damages at $250,000. According to the Dallas Morning News, the average award prior to tort reform was $1.21 million; now it is $880,000.”
“Lawsuit reform has had a major impact on the state’s economy. In addition to the influx of new businesses, more than 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas in the past three years. According to the Texas Medical Association, malpractice insurance premiums for Texas doctors have dropped more than 30 percent since 2003 and 15 new insurance companies have entered the Texas market. Regrettably, the federal health care reforms moving through Congress include nothing about lawsuit reform.”
Despite this good news and Texas’s improved reputation, the state’s battle over reform has not stopped. During the last legislative session, we saw trial lawyers and their lawsuit happy cronies make a full assault against the very reforms that have helped created jobs in Texas.
Fortunately, legal reform allies like the Texas Civil Justice League and Texans For Lawsuit Reform successfully thwarted these efforts. We also owe a huge Texas thank you to Governor Rick Perry who wasn’t afraid to wield his veto pen. Because of their vision and courage, Texas will continue to be a model for the nation.