Why Won’t Justice at Stake Come Clean on Its Support for “Merit” Selection?
November 3, 2010
Justice at Stake is in a lather again because Glenn Beck (along with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial and op-ed) called attention to the $45 million campaign George Soros’ Open Society Institute has been waging to promote a host of schemes, including “merit” selection, that would radically change America’s courts. Among the goofier rebuttals is the claim that Justice at Stake ($5.8 million in Soros money) doesn’t really support “merit” selection. Give me a break.
As Ed Whelan pointed out the other day on NRO’s Bench Memos, Justice at Stake was a major contributor to Nevadans for Qualified Judges, which promoted … you guessed it! – “merit” selection. A casual review of the group’s October 19th contribution and expense report filed with the Nevada Secretary of State reveals that Justice at Stake was actually the second biggest contributor to the campaign during the most recent quarter, behind only casino mogul Steve Wynn’s Wynn Resorts.
I understand that Justice at Stake would prefer to keep all this quiet so it can keep perpetuating the myth that the “merit” selection movement is some kind of spontaneous public uprising, rather than a phony “grassroots” charade bought and paid for by a billionaire hedge fund tycoon. But does Justice at Stake really think that conservative groups don’t have access to the Internet and can’t instantly “fact check” its ridiculous claims?
Elections a Big Victory for Judicial Accountability
November 3, 2010
In addition to sending shock waves through Washington, voters on Tuesday sent another clear and unambiguous message: We want judges to be accountable to the people they serve.
In Nevada, voters crushed a ballot proposal that would have stripped them of their democratic right to vote for judges and transferred power to a tiny cabal of legal elites. With two-thirds of precincts reporting, according to a Las Vegas Sun report Question 1 was getting hammered 58% to 42%. Apparently, Sandra Day O’Connor’s incessant lobbying and 1:00 am robocalls backfired disastrously.
In Iowa, in a push-back against judicial arrogance, voters dumped three sitting Supreme Court justices who were up for retention – the first time in history that any justice lost a retention election. Voter outrage erupted when an activist court overstepped its authority by overturning the legislature’s ban on gay marriage and forcing the state to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.
In Michigan, conservatives regained control of the Supreme Court, with Robert Young and Mary Beth Kelly defeating trial lawyer-backed opponents. Rule of law justices will once again be a majority on Michigan’s high court.
(For additional state court election results, I recommend Ed Whelan/Gary Marx’s updates over at Bench Memos and the Legal Newsline’s rundown.)
As a recent report by the American Justice Partnership (which I run) reveals, the uber-liberal Open Society Institute has spent over $45 million in the last decade in an attempt to fundamentally alter America’s judiciary. Every so-called “reform” the Soros-bankrolled network and its leader, Justice at Stake, support, including “merit” selection, is aimed at reducing the power and input of ordinary citizens when it comes to deciding who will serve us on the bench. On Tuesday, voters loudly proclaimed that even George Soros’ millions can’t buy our courts.
Gotcha!
November 2, 2010
Bench Memo’s Ed Whelan nails Bert Brandenburg over at Justice at Stake for “misplaying the victim card” in his defense of Sandra Day O’Connor. Brandenburg ridiculously claims Justice at Stake is agnostic on the question of “merit” selection – but, Whelan points out, JAS is one of the main funders behind the “Yes on 1” campaign in Nevada which seeks to take away Nevadans right to vote for state judges and establish … you guessed it … “merit” selection.
Let’s Judge Sandra Day O’Connor by Her Own Standards
November 2, 2010
Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg has a piece calling on everyone to pleeeaasssee “lay off” former U.S. Supreme Court Justice (and current “merit” selection lobbyist) Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor got caught up in a little scandal last week after she woke up 50,000 Nevadans around 1:00 am with robocalls urging them to support a ballot initiative to end democratic judicial elections.
She tried to head off personal embarrassment by claiming she never authorized her taped message to be used as political telemarketing. But several outside commentators (including Ed Whelan and Gary Marx over at NRO’s Bench Memos and in a great oped by lawyers David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman) questioned whether her electioneering ran afoul of the judicial code of ethics. You see, although Justice O’Connor retired from the Supreme Court of the United States she has not resigned from the federal bench. She still hears cases when filling in on the federal bench and in just the past month had ruled on a case which could conceivably influence some Nevada voters.
This is where Brandenburg cries foul. He scolds O’Connor’s critics for “imply[ing] corruption” and then distancing themselves – of committing a “drive-by political hit” and conducting a “political mugging.” Talk about hypocrisy!
In making her “merit” selection campaign pitch, Justice O’Connor constantly impugns elected judges with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. She casually slimes honorable judges, claiming “the question is one of perception” and arguing that judicial elections “give an appearance at least that there might not have been a fair and impartial judge sitting on the case.” Having implied corruption and waded into a political fight over the direction of our courts, she and her allies now want to hold her above criticism, even after creating her own “perception” or “an appearance at least” that there is a conflict between the work of Sandra Day O’Connor-federal judge and Sandra Day O’Connor-lobbyist for “merit” selection. Justice O’Connor wasn’t mugged – she was hoist by her own petard!
Before joining the bench, Justice O’Connor was a politician, so I suspect she doesn’t need to hide behind Bert Brandenburg. But if she’s going to keep taking political stands, she’s got to take the heat like everyone else – and she should also resign her position on the federal bench to end her “perception” problem.
Shut Up, They Argued
October 25, 2010
Justice Hijacked – the recent report released by the American Justice Partnership (which I run) – must be hitting a nerve. Last Friday, Justice at Stake – one of the prime financial beneficiaries of hedge fund billionaire George Soros’ $45 million campaign to radically change America’s courts – flipped out over a Wall Street Journal editorial that shined the spotlight on efforts by the Soros-bankrolled network to abolish democratic judicial elections in Nevada.
The closest thing they make to an argument is that Justice at Stake and the other groups funded by Mr. Soros are completely agnostic on “merit” selection. That’s kind of like the Chamber of Commerce claiming it doesn’t have any position on free enterprise.
Of course, Justice at Stake would have preferred that no one connect the dots and reveal the entire “merit” selection campaign for what it is: a push for a more liberal, more activist judiciary. Now that the public has taken notice and has begun pushing back against “merit” selection and the judges it produces in places like Nevada and Iowa, it’s no wonder that Justice at Stake is running for cover, reaffirming Justice Brandeis’ famous dictum that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Lifting the Rock in Nevada
October 22, 2010
Great editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, lifting the rock on the effort to abolish democratic judicial elections in Nevada and put “the responsibility for courts in the hands of a legal elite, instead of with voters or elected representatives.” As the editorial makes clear, the campaign is being pushed by George Soros-financed groups like Justice at Stake, which “see the state courts as the next frontier for moving [their] political agendas.” (The Journal also quotes a recent study by the American Justice Partnership, which I run, revealing that Soros has dumped over $45 million into anti-election campaigns nationwide.)
Justice at Stake and other Soros-bankrolled groups try to fool the public into believing that the move toward “merit” selection is some kind of organic, grassroots uprising. But Nevadans have already voted down “merit” selection proposals twice – and polls show 71% of voters prefer judicial elections over other systems. As the Journal cleverly puts it, “Nevada voters should send a message that their judiciary can’t be bought” – by George Soros or anyone else.
Who Trusts the Voters?
October 21, 2010
Proponents of “merit” selection typically argue that doing away with democratic judicial elections in favor of a secret selection committee is all about eliminating “politics from the process.” Another argument they like to trot out is that “too much money in judicial elections creates the ‘appearance’ of impropriety.” (Here, I put the lie to these arguments.)
But in their more revealing moments, the “merit” crowd lets down its guard and reveals its true feelings: “Voters. You just can’t trust ‘em.”
You don’t hear this one as much because even “merit” supporters must surely know that “the people can’t be trusted” isn’t a winning argument. But there it was again…in full display earlier this week in an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal entitled, “Voters have a hard time picking judges.”
As American Courthouse readers know, Justice at Stake and its network of allies have made Nevada a primary target in their national campaign to roll back democratic judicial elections. A ballot initiative — “Question 1″ — would amend the state constitution to change the judicial selection process from democratic election to “merit” selection.
In arguing in favor of the ballot initiative, UNLV law professor, Jeff Stempel, had this to say:
“In my opinion, asking the average voter to be fully informed on 29 races would be asking them to do the impossible….It’s too much to ask voters to get to know every candidate…The rules make it too difficult for laypersons. It’s tough for me, as a lawyer, to research candidates. What does it mean when they say, ‘I’ll be tough on crime,’ or ‘I have integrity?’ We have no way to quantify those kinds of statements.”
Candidates regularly make these kind of claims - “I’ll be tough on crime. I have integrity, character, etc.” - when running for governor, Congress or the presidency. And we leave it up to voters to determine whether that’s an important argument or not. So is Prof. Stempel suggesting that voters are incapable of “quantifying those statements” when pulling the lever for those offices? Of course he’s not.
Because, in addition to believing that voters are too stupid to know which judge to vote for, he is part of the camp which believes that, upon donning black robes, judges are no longer ordinary human beings and should therefore not sully themselves with such things as accountability to the people.
Rather than have me make the argument, I’ll let Brian Brown, the author of an op-ed in the USA Today earlier this week, have the last word. I believe he put it quite well when he wrote this about the retention elections in Iowa:
“This is the United States of America, not the former Soviet Union. If we have an election, we allow individuals and groups to make their cases before the people, and then the people decide.
“But many elites don’t trust the people. They don’t trust the voters to make up their own minds after hearing and seeing all of the ads and arguments. On this we profoundly disagree.
“’Of the people, by the people, for the people’ is not just a pleasant sounding patriotic phrase. Judges derive their authority from the people, who are truly the sovereign in this great country.
“Judges are not above the citizenry. The voters of Iowa have the civil right, and duty, to hold their judges accountable.”
Justice Hijacked: The $45 Million Campaign (And Counting) to Abolish Judicial Elections and Reshape America’s Courts
September 9, 2010
Answer: At least $45 million.
Question: How much has billionaire hedge fund titan George Soros spent over the past decade to make our courts less democratic?
At a Heritage Foundation-sponsored event today, the American Justice Partnership (which I head) released a new report that provides the first ever comprehensive review of the lavishly-funded network of groups underwritten by Soros’ political operation, the Open Society Institute (OSI). I’ll be speaking about the report’s findings at a Federalist Society luncheon tomorrow.
The report details 10 years of contributions to more than 40 organizations across the country totaling at least $45.4 million. When you add in the additional $52.5 million given to these same groups, the total comes to nearly 100 million staggering dollars. No wonder the American Bar Association, which has raked in over $2.3 million from OSI, gushed in the ABA Journal that Soros “could bring more change to the justice system and legal profession than anyone since a small group of founders crafted the Constitution.”
But, as American Courthouse readers know, unlike the Founders, who believed government must be accountable to the people, the “Open Society” Institute is working to make our courts less transparent, our judges less accountable, and the judicial selection process more secret. Please read the full report – I’ll post more findings in the weeks ahead.
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.
“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.