Litigation

Editorial: ?Ban Contested MD Judicial Elections?

By Peter Hardin

A proposal to eliminate contested elections of Maryland circuit judges has won a strong endorsement from a Washington Post editorial:

“Judges are not — and should never be confused with — politicians. Insulating those who serve on the bench from the potentially corrosive influence of money and politics would help to avert cases of mistaken identity.”

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has proposed replacing contested elections for circuit judges with retention elections. (See Gavel Grab.) According to Gansler, candidates for circuit judgeships pulled in nearly $4 million in campaign contributions between 2003 and 2006.

The Post editorial quoted admonitions of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and cautioned, “For judges, drumming up campaign money — often from lawyers who appear before them — and marketing themselves undermines the perception of impartiality and can in practice lead to its corrosion.”

In Michigan, Justice O’Connor repeated her call for merit selection of state judges. The flood of campaign money into judicial elections  is a problem that “may get worse and very soon,” the Detroit Free Press quoted her as saying.

You can learn more about the threat of runaway spending in state judicial elections from Justice at Stake’s issues page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 10, 2010 (boomark / email).