Litigation

Brandenburg: ?Revolution? in Court Elections

By Charlie Hall

“The last 10 years have brought a revolution in the election of state Supreme Court judges. Special-interest cash has become king. Most Americans fear that justice is for sale,” says Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, says in a commentary at the American Constitution Society blog.

The article - titled “Justice for Sale?” - lays out key findings from the recently released “New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change.” Noting that special interests are spending millions to sway court elections, and to undermine campaign laws that might limit their influence, Brandenburg says:

“If these groups get their way, special interests could spend unlimited amounts, in total secrecy, to elect the judges of their choice, presumably to get the rulings that they want.

“That might be a cozy world for those writing checks, but it’s a scary world for the rest of us – businesses and individuals alike – who depend on courts for a fair, impartial resolution of our disputes. Big money, campaign politics, and secret spending have little to do with the words carved over the Supreme Court’s bronze doors: Equal Justice Under Law.”

In another online commentary about the “New Politics” report, Jordan Singer, professor at New England School of Law, suggests that while judicial elections are constitutional, they often don’t pass the “smell test.” He adds:

“Is there hope? Although several scholars quoted in the report suggest that judicial elections are here to stay, there are enough cracks in the façade to suggest a brighter future. More states are implementing public financing for judicial elections, and others are contemplating getting rid of elections altogether.”

Jordan is a former researcher at the Institute for the Advancement of American Legal Services in Denver, a Justice at Stake partner.

Full post as published by The Gavel on August 24, 2010 (boomark / email).