Fighting to Overturn the Will of Wisconsin Voters
July 6, 2010
It’s been more than two years since Wisconsin voters ousted incumbent Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler in favor of Michael Gabelman, but judicial activists in Wisconsin refuse to give up the ghost. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Court is currently deadlocked 3-3 over allegations that Gabelman “lied” in a campaign ad that highlighted Butler’s liberal record. A three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel, along with three of Gableman’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, believes the charge should be dismissed. But what happens next is anyone’s guess.
Butler, AmericanCourthouse readers will remember, was appointed to the court in “open defiance” of the wishes of Wisconsin voters, who had already rejected him once by an overwhelming 2:1 margin. Following his appointment, Butler shifted the court sharply to the left, eviscerating Wisconsin’s medical liability reforms and inventing crackpot new theories to open Wisconsin employers to more abusive litigation.
The “merit” selection crowd is already using this ongoing dispute to gin up support for its goal of abolishing democratic judicial elections in Wisconsin.
No “Merit” For Texas
July 2, 2010
The Texas Lawyer (subscription required) has a hand-wringer on the failure to replace democratic judicial elections with “merit” selection – where a tribunal controlled by legal elites meets in secret to decide who should sit on the bench. For 10 years, Senator/Attorney Robert Duncan – who has been designated a “Texas Super Lawyer” – has been pushing the “merit” selection rock up the hill without success. Why is Duncan so determined to abolish the constitutional right of Texans to choose their public servants on the bench? Because, in an election, a judge might actually lose his/her job! The horror! Read more
The Importance of Getting the Right Judges
June 30, 2010
In a recent address, Patrick Hanlon of the University of California-Berkley School of Law noted that “critical tort reform” has helped reduce frivolous litigation, but – perhaps unintentionally – pointed out the importance of getting the right judges on the bench.
According to Hanlon:
“ … plaintiffs and their lawyers are still able to pick the best forum for favorable judges and juries sympathetic to their cases and more inclined to side with them in their tort actions. ‘Surprisingly, overall, judges seem to have had a much greater impact than the juries have in creating anti-business litigation environments,’ he pointed out.”
Could there possibly be a better argument for why businesses and their advocates should fight schemes like “merit” selection, which typically give legal special interests such as trial lawyers enhanced power to decide who will control our courts?
Fingerpointing in Minnesota
June 22, 2010
For yet another year, the push to replace democratic judicial elections in Minnesota with “merit” selection and retention elections has failed. Now comes the fingerpointing and recriminations as proponents look for someone to blame for the doomed effort. Politics in Minnesota has the report.
Perhaps the explanation as to why “merit” selection continues to fail in Minnesota is as simple as what was offered by the executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life:
“[The legislation] doesn’t allow grass-roots Minnesotans to be involved in the process, as they are now with direct elections,” he says. “It would place a lot of power in the hands of the few who would advise whether to retain or not retain [a judge]. For those who want to see changes, it’s another obstacle to change.”
My bet is MN state legislators know this, too, and are understandably reluctant to strip voters of their right to participate in choosing who sits on the bench.
Democratic Elections “Under Assault” In PA
June 18, 2010
Nathan Shrader of pa2010.com summarizes Pennsylvania voter attitudes regarding the effort in that state to, in Shrader’s words, “eliminat[e] the ability of Pennsylvania voters to choose their judges.”
Shrader lists the following stats demonstrating overwhelming voter opposition to so-called “merit” selection:
- A poll commissioned by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts found that 75 percent of Pennsylvanians feel that “merit” selection could make the judiciary more political than it is today. Almost 70 percent believe that judicial selection takes power from the public and places it in the hands of “politicians and trial lawyers.”
- A Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy poll in September 2009 found that 72 percent of Pennsylvanians favored continuing to elect their Supreme Court judges while just 21 percent would support a nominating commission.
- An Annenberg Public Policy Center poll conducted nationally in 2006 found that voters across the nation favored election over selection, as “nearly 65 percent of Americans want to elect those who sit on the bench,” according to their results.
Shrader believes “the big wigs and moneyed interests are lining up to rob the people of their voice in determining those who may one day sit in judgment of us, our families, or our rights.” That’s right: When insiders choose, the people lose.
“Merit” Nonsense in Pennsylvania
June 17, 2010
The editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are foaming at the mouth because a bill they support that aims to strip Pennsylvanians of their right to vote for judges – a right enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution – is being held up by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Tom Caltagirone. But the people of Pennsylvania should be thankful that at least one legislator is willing to stand up for their democratic rights.
In its snarky attack on Rep. Caltagirone, the Post-Gazette starkly reveals all the arrogance and condescension of the “merit” selection movement. Powerful elites support it, so who is one little legislator to stand in their way? Democratic judicial elections are just a “lottery” anyway because voters just pick the candidate with a “famous name.” Retention elections are good enough for voters – never mind that fact that judges standing for retention lose about as often as the old Soviet Politburo members.
The Post-Gazette asks “what possible harm could there be in letting lawmakers vote for something that must be endorsed or rejected by the public?” Here’s an answer: In a poll released by “merit” selection’s own supporters, 75% of Pennsylvanians said “merit” selection won’t take politics out of judicial selection and could even make the selection of judges “more political.” (Question 36) And nearly 7 out of 10 say “merit” selection transfers the power to choose judges from voters to “politicians and trial lawyers.” (Question 37)
Pennsylvanians instinctively understand that “merit” selection is really just a rigged game to put control of judicial selection in the hands of special interests. If this proposal makes it to the ballot, these special interests will spend millions upon millions to make sure that the process for choosing judges in Pennsylvania will be “one man, one vote, one time.”
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
Democractic Elections Survive in Minnesota — For Now
June 5, 2010
A bill to abolish contested elections in Minnesota and replace them with up-or-down retention elections is dead – at least for this legislative session. Both Gavel Grab and the Minnesota publication, Finance and Commerce, have accounts of the bill’s demise.
Will Missouri’s Secretary of State Side With the People or With the Lawyers?
June 2, 2010
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today on the drive in Missouri to restore democratic judicial elections and scrap the state’s “merit” selection system. As the Journal correctly notes, far from being nonpartisan, “merit” selection has:
“handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations….Judicial elections carry the risk of partisan excess, but at least they hold judges accountable and don’t allow a small legal clique to nominate its friends and ideological allies.”
Election supporters have gathered enough signatures – over 200,000 – to put the question on the November ballot, but Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan must certify the signatures. Carnahan is running for Senate and has received over $500,000 from lawyers, who desperately want to preserve their privileged position when it comes to picking judges. So will she bow to her financiers or put the measure on the ballot?