judicial elections

Tennessee voters opted to change the way that judges are selected, The Tennessean's Dave Boucher reports. The constitutional amendment tweaks the state's judicial selection process from one in which the governor appoints judges to one in which judges, after appointment by the governor, must be approved by legislators and face judicial retention vote from the general public vote every eight years.

Control of the Tennessee appellate courts has been heated this year. Three Democratic justices on the Tennessee Supreme Court were retained in the most expensive judicial campaign in the state's history. Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey funded much of the effort to oust the justices. According to the AP, Ramsey promised to push for popular elections for judges if the constitutional amendment failed.

At least $730,000 has been spent on a Montana Supreme Court race, Hungry Horse News reports. More money has been spent on challenger Lawrence VanDyke than incumbent Justice Mike Wheat. Wheat has been labeled as more liberal than VanDyke. Trial lawyers have contributed to Wheat and conservative groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee and Americans for Prosperity-Montana have been contributing to VanDyke.

Wheat blames some of the ads on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which now allows corporations to directly spend money on political campaigns ads.

Mother Jones has a piece asking if Americans can get a fair day in court: "These days, as more candidates for the bench face rough contests—buffeted increasingly by outside money, thanks to the US Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United—state judges around the country often raise six- and seven-figure sums, mount statewide campaigns, and fend off attack ads from groups that don't disclose their donors. This trend has escalated over the last decade and a half as partisan groups realize that donating to judges can get them more influence, for less money, than bankrolling legislative campaigns."

Mother Jones notes that a Emory University study found that justices who received more money from business interests are more likely to vote in favor of businesses appearing before them and that an analysis by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress suggested that justices would side with prosecutors when more money was spent on ads suggesting they were soft on crime.

There's been a strange twist in two Montana Supreme Court races, the Independent Record reports: U.S. Sen. Jon Tester has accused Stanford University and Darmouth College of "voter manipulation" for their role in a mailer sent regarding the Supreme Court races. The 2014 "Montana General Election Voter Information Guide" rated that four candidates as more liberal and more conservative and was sent by a Stanford research project funded with $250,000 from the Hewlett Foundation and $100,000 from the university, the Independent Record further reports. The project's website says its studying how candidate positioning affects voter turnout in judicial elections when races are nonpartisan. Tester said he has concerns about the universities testing hypotheses on the voting public.

There's been a strange twist in two Montana Supreme Court races, the Independent Record reports: U.S. Sen. Jon Tester has accused Stanford University and Darmouth College of "voter manipulation" for their role in a mailer sent regarding the Supreme Court races. The 2014 "Montana General Election Voter Information Guide" rated that four candidates as more liberal and more conservative and was sent by a Stanford research project funded with $250,000 from the Hewlett Foundation and $100,000 from the university, the Independent Record further reports. The project's website says its studying how candidate positioning affects voter turnout in judicial elections when races are nonpartisan. Tester said he has concerns about the universities testing hypotheses on the voting public.

Even though a a federal judge has ruled the judicial election system in Marion County, Indiana, unconstitutional, the system won't be fixed anytime soon, the Indiana Lawyer reports: "Indianapolis voters will go to the polls Nov. 4 and elect 16 Marion Superior judges, but in truth there’s no contest because who will win already is decided. Eight Democrats and eight Republicans selected in their respective parties’ May primary elections appear on the ballot unopposed."

U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana ruled that the law governing the selection of judges in Marion County imposes a severe burden on the right to vote, the Indiana Lawyer reports. The judicial selection system in Marion County also "enabled slating, whereby judicial candidates who made five-figure donations to their county party organizations received ballot preference and the party’s stamp of approval during the primaries," the Indiana Lawyer also reports.

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Professor Joel Schumm said it's likely that Marion County would adopt a merit selection system like other Indiana counties in which judges are appointed by a commission.

The Republican State Leadership Committee, a national Republican group, is planning on spending $5 million on judicial races this year, reports Joe Palazzolo in the Wall Street Journal: "The GOP committee’s president, Matt Walter, said his organization’s main opponents are labor unions and groups of personal-injury lawyers, who have long contributed to state judicial races." The heavy spending is prompting judges to campaign more in order to hold onto their seats, Palazzolo further reports, which means that judges are forced into the "ethically tricky process of soliciting big money and stumping for votes from constitutents they might face in court."

The trend of outside money being given to judicial campaigns has accelerated since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down federal limits on corporate and union campaign spending, WSJ further reports.

Tennessee voters will be deciding whether to keep the state's method of selecting appellate judges, the Associated Press reports. Under a "merit selection" system, the governor makes appointments to fill vacancies on the state's appellate courts and voters then decide whether to keep the judges and justices in retention elections. A proposed constitutional amendment would allow legislators to reject the governor's nominees.

Control of the Tennessee appellate courts has been heated this year. Three Democratic justices on the Tennessee Supreme Court were retained in the most expensive judicial campaign in the state's history. Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey funded much of the effort to oust the justices. According to the AP, he will push for popular elections for judges if the constitutional amendment fails.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of a Florida judicial candidate who argues the state's ban on letting candidates for the bench directly seek campaign contributions violates her First Amendment rights, the Associated Press reports. "The Florida Supreme Court upheld the ban in May, saying it was justified because such conduct raises an appearance of impropriety and may lead the public to question a judge's impartiality," AP further reports. The candidate argues the law is meaningless because campaign committees can directly seek contributions.

Bert Brandenberg, executive director of Justice at Stake, has delved into the election of judges and the problems it poses for democracy. There have been record-breaking expenditures in races for the Tennessee Supreme Court ($1.4 million) and for the North Carolina Supreme Court ($1.3 million) this year: "Left unchecked, the tidal wave of judicial campaign cash will upend justice in America by pressuring courts to answer to political influence, by turning judges into fundraisers and by convincing disillusioned citizens that justice is for sale," he opines.

How did this come about? State supreme courts are now the battleground "in the nation’s long-running tort wars, pitting business interests, which are eager to limit damage awards, against plaintiffs and their allies, who contend that big-dollar judgments are critical to holding negligent businesses accountable," Brandenberg further argues.