Litigation

Solid Bipartisan Majorities Back Judicial Election Reforms

By Peter Hardin

A new national poll shows that large bipartisan majorities of Americans believe elected judges deliver favored treatment to their campaign backers, and similar majorities support reforms to curb the perception that justice is for sale.

“The American mainstream wants courts to be off-limits to special-interest money and partisan politics,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, which commissioned the Harris Interactive poll. You can read a JAS news release about the survey by clicking here, or check out the full results here.

“The new polling shows that the desire for impartial courts is broad and bipartisan,” Brandenburg added. The Harris Interactive telephone survey was conducted between June 9 and 13, and it was published today, on the heels of a new study co-authored by Justice at Stake.

The study showed that in the past decade, fundraising by state Supreme Court candidates soared to $206.9 million, more than doubling the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s (see Gavel Grab). To put their favored candidates on many state Supreme Courts, business groups, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other special interests have spent millions of dollars. Co-authoring the report were the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Hofstra University law professor James Sample.

The poll is timely because more than two dozen states will hold elections for Supreme Court justices in November.

The telephone survey was conducted among a national cross-section of 1,004 U.S. adults. It indicated that Americans from both political parties are deeply uneasy about potential conflicts of interest caused by the flood of judicial campaign cash:

• 71 percent of Democrats, and 70 percent of Republicans, believe campaign expenditures have a significant impact on courtroom decisions.
• 82 percent of Republicans, and 79 percent of Democrats, say a judge should not hear cases involving a campaign backer who spent $10,000 toward the judge’s election.
• 88 percent of Republicans, and 86 percent of Democrats, say that “all campaign expenditures to elect judges” should be disclosed publicly, so that voters can know who is seeking to put each candidate on the bench.
• 69 percent of all adults, including 73 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Democrats, said they support a menu of reforms to reduce special-interest influence in the courtroom.

Justice at Stake also noted that surveys of corporate leaders–including those by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce–suggest a similar openness in the business community to judicial election reforms.

According to a 2007 Zogby International poll, commissioned by the Committee for Economic Development, 79 percent of business leaders surveyed believe campaign spending influences courtroom decisions.

Two years ago, Pepsico, Wal-Mart, Intel and Lockheed Martin signed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to require judges to step aside when they have received “outsized campaign contributions” from a party appearing before them in court.

In addition, four of the nation’s five highest-ranking states for best “lawsuit climate,” according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s yearly survey of corporate counsel and senior executives, are states where judges are appointed using nonpartisan merit selection commissions. Four of the five lowest-ranking states choose judges through competitive elections.

Full post as published by The Gavel on September 08, 2010 (boomark / email).