Litigation

Editorial: How to Deter ?Buying Justice?

By Peter Hardin

A new rule aimed at removing the influence of campaign cash from courtrooms in New York State makes sense but may be limited in its impact, a Chicago Tribune editorial contends.

The editorial is entitled “Buying justice,” and it states upfront, “Big money has been going into judicial races across the country, and for obvious reasons.The courts have enormous power. Sometimes that power is abused.”

The editorial spotlights New York’s new disqualification rule. As described in Gavel Grab earlier, it will prohibit hundreds of elected judges from hearing cases involving parties or lawyers who gave $2,500 or more to their campaigns in the prior two years.

In the editorial’s view, there will be less incentive for big-money donors to give for judicial campaigns if they can’t influence a judge. But perhaps the New York rule will lead to  independent campaigns against judicial candidates, or higher spending against a judge, the editorial reasons.

It concludes that the rule may help deter the most egregious conflict-of-interest cases, such as one from West Virginia that spawned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. Massey (see Justice at Stake resource page on the case). The editorial adds, “There’s surely value in that. But it’s not likely to squeeze the money or the politics out of the courts.”

More restrictive rules are one reform sought by defenders of fair and impartial courts. Another reform, merit-based selection of judges, is defended by Julie DelCourt, an associate editor of the Tulsa World, in a column in that newspaper.

In Oklahoma, the state Senate has passed a resolution that would eliminate the Judicial Nominating Commission, which recommends candidates for the bench to the governor. The legislation also would require Senate confirmation of judicial picks (see Gavel Grab).

DelCour maintains, “Where’s the evidence that the current process has produced wild-eyed activist judges, liberal wrist-slappers or incompetent bench-warmers? SB 621 and SJR 36 are both legislative power grabs masquerading as something else. They might create change but certainly not reform. If one of these measures prevails, Oklahomans will be the losers – presented yet again with a ‘solution’ in search of a problem. “

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 14, 2011 (boomark / email).