Beware of Calls to Change Michigan Judicial Elections
July 22, 2010
A recent Lansing State Journal editorial called upon Michigan voters to “junk” state Supreme Court elecitons.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young has weighed in with an excellent commentary taking issue with the LSJ and others who advocate eliminating democratic judicial elections such as George Soros and former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
I recommend reading Justice Young’s piece in its entirety, but here are a few gems: Read more
Nevada Bar on Retention Elections
July 14, 2010
Our gavel grabbing friends over at the George Soros Center for an Undemocratic Judiciary – aka Justice at Stake – have a little item from the new president of the Nevada Bar expressing support for scrapping democratic judicial elections in favor of “merit” selection. Why? Because “retention elections would make judges much more accountable to voters” than contested elections.
Come again?
Of the 6,309 judges who ran in retention elections between 1964 and 2006, more than 99% were reelected, according to an article in Judicature by Professor Larry Aspin of Bradley University. Vanderbilt Law Profession Brian Fitzpatrick found that 145 out of 146 Tennessee judges were retained in a recent study he published on that state’s experiment with “merit” selection.
I’m willing to be disproven on this, but are Nevada judges who run in contested elections really returned to office more than 99% of the time, even taking into account the fact that many run unopposed?
A Profile In Courage in Pennsylvania
June 15, 2010
It takes courage for any politician to stand up against elite opinion. It takes even more courage when that elite opinion is backed up by powerful special interests and the checking account of billionaire hedge fund tycoon George Soros. So I’m pleased to announce that the First Annual American Courthouse Award for Distinguished Public Service goes to Pennsylvania State Representative Tom Caltagirone, a Democrat from Reading, PA. Read more
75% of Pennsylvanians say “Merit” Selection Could Make Judicial Selection “More Political”
June 10, 2010
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) – a group funded by billionaire hedge fund titan George Soros – is trumpeting a new poll that purports to show broad public support among Pennsylvania voters for replacing democratic elections with a “merit” selection system for choosing judges. But what the poll really demonstrates is the extent to which the “merit” selection crowd will go to manipulate polling data to suit its ideological ends.
PMC claims on their blog, for example, that 93% of Pennsylvanians “want the opportunity to vote on whether Pennsylvanians should change the way we select” judges. Sounds impressive. But in the PMC poll, respondents are asked this question only after three other “questions” (see #s 41, 42 and 43) describing recent judicial scandals in Pennsylvanians. In politics, this technique is called “push polling” – a device used to manipulate public opinion, rather than illicit it. Besides, who is going to say they don’t want the “opportunity to vote” on almost any question? Read more
8.7 Million vs. 14 (or 6)
May 6, 2010
The folks at JudgesOnMerit – another anti-election group financed in part by hedge fund billionaire George Soros – turned me on to a pro-“merit” selection editorial from a Pennsylvania paper called the Herald-Standard. The editors endorse legislation that would scrap the voting rights of Pennsylvania’s more than 8.7 million registered voters and turn the job of selecting judges over to a 14-member panel.
“Merit” panels are often criticized – including here on American Courthouse – as a mechanism for elites to elbow out the people when it comes to choosing judges – so, perhaps in deference to this criticism, the new Pennsylvania proposal comes with a twist. Eight of the 14 members will be chosen by the governor and legislators – presumably drawn from the usual collection of legal special interests like the state trial lawyers association. But six – a minority to be sure, but still … six – will be “ordinary citizens picked by lottery.”
Bingo! It’s your lucky day – you get to pick a judge! Read more
Non-Scandal in Wisconsin
May 3, 2010
An ultra liberal special interest group in Wisconsin last week launched an ugly attack on Republican Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen – and in its attack, the group also smeared the American Justice Partnership, an organization which I run. (The following item is cross-posted to our AJP website).
The group is called “One Wisconsin Now” and it accuses Wisconsin AG Van Hollen’s office of a “gross abuse of power” and putting “politics above the law.” Very serious charges. So, exactly what offense did Van Hollen’s office commit? Basically being against President Obama’s government take-over of the health care system and seeking information about joining other AGs in a Constitutional challenge to this monstrosity.
(One Wisconsin Now also tries to drag down the American Justice Partnership for contributing to the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a group dedicated to electing conservative, rule-of-law AGs such as JB Van Hollen.)
If all that sounds like a big nothing-burger to you, you’re not alone. The most interesting thing here is not the non-scandal, but the extent to which a tangled web of special interest groups is spending millions of dollars to try to turn policy disagreements into criminal acts – or at least create an appearance of impropriety that can be used in the next campaign. Read more
Same Old Tune in Pennsylvania
April 27, 2010
Last week, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell made state headlines with yet another plea for the state legislature to pass “merit” selection legislation. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rendell has been lobbying for “merit” selection of judges for “two decades” to no avail. Despite Rendell’s stunning ineffectiveness, all of the state’s pro-”merit” forces were downright delighted to have the good governor crank up the music one more time.
Joining in on the chorus, for instance, was none other than Shira Goodman who “applaud[ed] the governor’s commitment and support of this cause.” She knows this tune by heart, after all. Her group, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, has been singing the “merit” song for more than 20 years and still has nothing to show for it. Read more
The National Journal Discovers the Earth is Round
April 12, 2010
The National Journal today reprinted a Justice at Stake press release — oops, I mean, had a very thoughtful piece — about how the Citizens United decision has unleashed a flood of corporate money on state judicial races. The gravamen of the piece is an oft-cited statistic from a still-forthcoming Justice at Stake report which suggests spending on state judicial campaigns more than doubled in the decade from 2000 to 2009 compared to the decade between 1990 and 1999.
As I’ve argued before – Big Deal.
The somewhat boring, less sensational truth is, spending on judicial races merely tracks the overall rise in contributions to other campaigns. In one four-year election cycle alone — never mind a decade — total spending by presidential candidates nearly doubled, from $717 million in 2004 to $1.3 billion in 2008. Barack Obama all by himself spent about $50 million more to win the presidency in 2008 than George W. Bush and John Kerry combined spent in 2004. In 2008, the average winner of a House seat spent $1.37 million — more than double the amount of the average winner a decade ago ($650,000 in 1998).
Actually, Citizens United will probably not alter corporate spending on campaigns all that dramatically. Corporations have always been able to donate. The only difference now is these donations can be used to expressly advocate for a particular candidate, rather than going right up to the edge with issue ads. Any increase in corporate political spending is likely to be dwarfed by the trial bar and trade unions – two groups whose future prosperity is so dependent on their ability to pull the levers of government power.
Judicial Selection: What Does it Mean to have Judges “Answerable to the Law”?
April 6, 2010
Adam Skaggs of the Brennan Center has an article in The New Republic bemoaning the influence of campaign cash in judicial races and predicting a post-Citizens United arms race of special interest spending.
Skaggs rehashes the usual poll numbers about public concern over the perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decisions. He fails to mention, however, that despite these concerns, 75% of Americans believe state Supreme Court justices should be elected, according to a 2008 poll by the American Justice Partnership Foundation (full disclosure: I’m president of the AJP). He also ignored a recent letter by William Weisenberg of the American Bar Association, who took sharp issue with the notion that widespread judicial elections mean that justice is “for sale” in the U.S., condemning this notion as “impugning the integrity of our court system and the thousands of men and women who daily don their robes and administer justice in a fair and impartial manner.”
Between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which data is available), the Brennan Center raked in more than $10 million from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, so it’s no surprise the group recycles the typical Justice at Stake boilerplate. But at the very end of the piece, Skaggs dips his toe into what I believe should become a really interesting debate – namely, exactly to whom are judges really accountable?
For those of us on the side of democratic judicial elections, the answer is quite easy: Judges, like every other public servant in America’s democracy, must ultimately be accountable to the people. Skaggs believes this is wrong:
“Unlike legislators and executive officials, who are expected to act in accordance with the interests of their constituents, judges don’t ‘represent’ anyone; they are answerable to the law, not to special interests that can cut the biggest campaign checks.”
Forget that last straw man – no thinking person believes judges should be accountable to the writers of the “biggest campaign checks.” The interesting thing here is the notion that judges “are answerable to the law.” A retired judge made the same point, which I blogged on last month, arguing that judges are “accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Both Skaggs and the judge seemed to believe this settles the question, but really it doesn’t. How exactly can “the law” hold judges accountable? If a judge exceeds her authority (as judges routinely do these days), how can “the law” force her to retreat to her proper role? If a judge makes a series of arbitrary, capricious decisions, how can “the law” replace that judge? How can “the law” decide whether a judge has fulfilled his oath?
Every top government official swears a duty to uphold “the law,” but someone has to determine whether they have fulfilled that responsibility. As I’ve written before, in a democracy, that someone is the voters. Saying judges should not be accountable to the people, but only to what their own conscience suggests “the law” demands is the same as saying they are accountable to no one.
Secretary of State Project: Campaign Overviews
April 5, 2010
Today’s Redstate blog provides a valuable resource: a backgrounder on the Secretary of State Project and a brief overview and analysis of nine key Secretaries of State candidates that the Project is backing in the 2010 elections.
As I’ve written previously (e.g., here and here), the SOS Project is funded by liberal luminary George Soros. It’s a partisan power-play to unfairly tilt elections to one political party.