Kansas Dust Storm
September 1, 2010
Two years ago, a group in Johnson County, Kansas promoted a ballot measure to restore the right to vote for county judges and end the local “merit” selection board. They unfortunately came up short - in large part due to the fact that “merit” proponents outspent supporters of democratic judicial elections 3:1 to defeat the measure, with most of the money coming from legal elites.
A group of Kansas voters is again calling into question the “merit” selection process. The Kansas Reporter (published by Kansas Policy Institute) has an article describing the effort to get rid of “merit” committees in Leavenworth and Atchinson counties. A petition is circulating in those counties in hopes of placing the issue on the November ballot. Petition supporter Donna Gillett says lawyers are the problem - four of the nine members on the “merit” panel are elected by lawyers:
“The appointment system denies the citizens of this district the right to participate equally in the selection of our judges.”
The Kansas Reporter also describes a separate anti-”merit” group led by election lawyer, James Bopp. The group has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Wichita to stop five members of the Kansas Supreme Court Nominating Commission from participating in judicial selection - all five are lawyers and all were elected by the state bar association.
As with the petitioners, Bopp also believes the favored treatment of the legal class is a problem when it comes to the state’s “merit” process. In fact, he believes Kansas’s “merit” selection law violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Kansas Constitution:
“If the Kansas Constitution said that the AFL-CIO is going to select judges, or the Right to Life or KKK or whoever, it would be perfectly obvious that would be wrong and this is equally wrong,” Bopp said. “There is nothing special about lawyers, and they’re more conflicted because their bread and butter is personal injury, and judges determine those cases, so many lawyers have an interest in who is the judge.”
“Nothing special about lawyers” — couldn’t have said it better myself.
How Big is $207 Million?
August 30, 2010
In their recently released report, the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake pose as a couple “nonpartisan” good government groups that only want to get money and politics out of judicial selection. Neal Peirce falls for it hook, line and sinker in his Seattle Times column yesterday.
Pierce leads off with the report’s “blockbuster” finding that total spending on judicial elections more than doubled from $83 million in the 1990s to about $207 million from 200-2009 – an increase of 149 percent to be exact. Sounds ominous – but is this evidence of special interest money pouring into judicial races or are judicial races just following a larger trend toward more expensive elections?
A quick dig through the invaluable Open Secrets provides the answer.
Between 2000 and 2009, presidential candidates raised $3.16 billion in three elections – an increase of 192 percent compared to the previous three White House races. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush and Al Gore (plus a few dogs and cats) raised $529 million. Eight years later, total contributions to presidential candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, et. al., reached nearly $1.79 billion – a 230 percent increase. Strike One.
By 2008, the winner of the average House seat spent $1.37 million, compared to $650,000 a decade earlier in 1998. That’s a 111 percent increase – a big jump, but not as much as judicial elections, so we’ll call that a foul ball, but still Strike Two.
Let’s take a look at the “worst” state identified by Brennan/JAS – Alabama. Between 2000 and 2009, we’re told, 45 Supreme Court candidates raised just shy of $41 million in five election cycles. During that same time period, there were just two gubernatorial cycles – not quite a fair comparison, but let’s have a look anyway. Between 2000 and 2009, 28 candidates for governor raised $62.7 million – 53 percent more than Supreme Court candidates in three fewer election cycles. If you add in 2010, the difference is even starker: 54 Supreme Court candidates raised just $42.2 million, compared to 41 gubernatorial candidates who raised $83.1 million – 97 percent more. Strike Three.
It seems pretty clear from just a cursory glance at historical election spending figures that the 149 percent increase in spending on judicial elections is comfortably in line with spending on other elections and doesn’t come close to matching the explosion in presidential campaign spending.
Of course, Pierce never notes that both Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center receive millions of dollars in funding by one of the country’s most powerful special interest groups – the Open Society Institute, bankrolled by hedge fund billionaire George Soros and underwriter of countless ultra-liberal causes.
If Neal Peirce wants to argue that citizens should give up their right to participate in the choice of state judges and turn the entire job over to a “merit” selection panel (usually dominated by legal special interest groups and elite lawyers), then he should just come right out and say so. Or at least he ought to be honest with his readers about the agendas of the Soros-funded groups that are trying to manipulate voters.
Judicial Coup D’etat on Michigan Supreme Court; Weaver the Deceiver Plays “Politics at its Worst”
August 27, 2010
Democrats have seized control of the Michigan Supreme Court as a result of a politically-rigged, backroom deal hatched months ago by Governor Jennifer Granholm and former Justice Betty Weaver.
In a surprise move, Weaver has stepped down from the bench, allowing Granholm a clear path to appoint hand-picked, trial-lawyer-friendly judge, Alton Davis. Granholm’s appointment goes into effect immediately and does not require approval by the state legislature.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not shedding a single tear in saying adios to Weaver. She has been an embarrassment to the bench for years. Detroit Free Press columnist, Brian Dickerson, famously summed up Weaver’s judicial acumen this way in a 2007 column:
“If you ran into Betty Weaver on a street corner and didn’t know she was a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, you might mistake her for a bag lady….Weaver can, in her most distracted moments, leave casual observers with the impression that she has temporarily lost her moorings in time and space.”
A well-known perk-grubber, she fought tooth-and nail to cling to a taxpayer funded car and a $60,000/year personal office. To top it all off, some of her fellow justices filed a complaint against her with the Judicial Tenure Commission earlier this year.
But this latest sleazeball move is an historic low, even for the likes of Weaver.
In an interview with the Detroit News, Weaver described a deal that makes the old Tammany Hall crowd look like a bunch of amateurs. She took credit for orchestrating the deal over the past several months:
“…first asking Davis whether he would be willing to replace her, then telling Granholm she would resign if Davis of Grayling [MI] was named to her seat. Weaver said Granholm first got in touch with Davis around June.”
Saul Anuzis of the Republican National Committee calls the whole affair “politics at its worst.” Josh Venable of the Michigan Republican Party has rightly called for an investigation into the inside dealings to see if any horse-trading or promises were made to make the deal go through.
As for Alton Davis? Hard to imagine the man can look himself in the mirror. Even harder to believe he can ever have any credibility as an unbiased Justice considering his role in this shoddy, shady exercise.
The most shameful result of this entire charade is that Gov. Granholm has completely excluded ordinary voters from choosing Weaver’s successor. While Davis will have to face the voters in November, he now does so as an “incumbent,” with all of the advantages incumbency provides. If Davis has any respect for the court – and for the people of Michigan – he should step down and let the voters select the next Michigan Supreme Court Justice.
“Merit” Selection Proponents Release New Report
August 16, 2010
This morning, National Public Radio reported on the latest study issued from the George Soros-backed “merit” selection movement. The report, authored by Justice At Stake, the Brennan Center, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and a Hofstra University law professor, purports to document an “explosion” in state judical campaign spending - some $200+ million all told.
And is all of this unseemly campaign spending actually influencing legal rulings and judicial behavior? Well, no actual evidence of that, just poll numbers and concerns about “appearance” problems.
In fact, when Lancaster Online examined 82 recent cases in Pennsylvania courts (h/t Judges On Merit) and compared the outcomes in those cases to judicial campaign contributions, the article’s subhead said it all: ”There’s no evidence [that] money influences decisions of state Supreme Court justices.” Rachel Caulfield of the American Judicature Society is quoted in the article saying,
“I haven’t seen any successful effort to link contributions to decision-making.”
Of course, the Justice At Stake crowd doesn’t let such pesky details detract from their efforts to end all democratic state judicial elections. Why wait for hard evidence before re-writing state constitutions and scrapping elections?
I’ll be reviewing the new study and posting analysis of this latest report in the weeks ahead.
Rolling Out The Big Guns in Nevada
July 28, 2010
Another column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Jane Ann Morrison, this time announcing that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (surprise!) will be using “her powers of persuasion to help convince Nevadans this change [merit selection] could improve the quality of Nevada judges.”
How will “merit” selection improve the quality of judges? Because, instead of voters picking judges through democratic elections, “a commission of judges, lawyers and lay people” will do the job for them! Read more
Democratic Judicial Elections Work in Ohio
July 26, 2010
Our friends at Gavel Grab have a little post lauding several Ohio judicial candidates for agreeing to abide by Marquess of Queensberry rules in the upcoming election. Chief Justice Eric Brown, Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice Judith Lanzinger and appellate Judge Mary Jane Trapp all signed a “clean-campaign pledge,” promising to focus their campaigns on experience and credentials. Candidates are also supposed to disavow any ads from outside groups that “impugn the integrity” of an opponent.
Of course, the greatest guarantors of “clean” judges are the people themselves – who can easily vote down any judicial candidate they feel is too negative or too beholden to special interest groups. Makes you wonder why the Gavel Grabbers are so afraid of democracy when it comes to picking judges.
No Merit for Nevada
July 23, 2010
Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison rolls out the standard boilerplate for why Nevadans ought to give up their right to choose their public servants on the bench in democratic elections and turn the job over to a “merit” panel – where a small cabal dominated by elite lawyers makes all the decisions.
One of the main objections seems to be that judicial races have gotten more expensive – yet she goes on to brag that the “merit” crowd is going to dump $700,000 into the campaign to promote its cause. What’s lacking here isn’t just a sense of irony, but a sense of proportion. Read more
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
Defending the First Amendment in Judicial Elections
July 21, 2010
Kentucky can no longer restrict the First Amendment rights of judicial candidates by forbidding them from disclosing their party affiliations or barring them from soliciting campaign funds, according to a recent ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the majority:
“While we do not question Kentucky’s right to select judges through popular elections, the Commonwealth cannot exempt itself from the demands of the First Amendment in the process.”
“There is room for debate about whether the election of state court judges is a good idea or a bad one. Yet this is no room for debate that, if a State opts to select its judges through popular elections, it must comply with the First Amendment in doing so.” Read more
The Politics of Retention Elections in Iowa
July 20, 2010
Retention elections, when combined with “merit” selection, are supposed to remove the stench of “politics” from the process of choosing and approving judges – or so we are assured by Hedge Fund Titans for a Non-Democratic Judiciary (aka Justice at Stake). But that only works when the people fulfill the role the “merit” selection crowd has assigned them: lemmings dutifully willing to rubber stamp the decisions made by elite lawyers who typically hold the privileged position of choosing judges behind closed doors.
But a funny thing happened in Iowa several years ago – the people revolted! Read more