Litigation

WV Poll: Majority Backs Public Financing

By Peter Hardin

BULLETIN: West Virginia’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday approved a plan for public financing of elections for two state Supreme Court seats in 2012. If the state adopts a public financing plan, it would become the fourth state to do so, according to a press release by the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development.

The Justice at Stake Campaign and the Committee for Economic Development unveiled new polling Monday showing that a majority of West Virginia voters backs the public financing of elections for state Supreme Court justices.

Voters responding to the poll registered strong concern that groups and individuals funding election campaigns can buy influence in the courtroom, according to the groups’  joint press release. The poll was described in a Legal News Line article and an Associated Press report.

The polling, conducted Feb. 21 to 24, showed 52 percent of respondents favored public financing of high court elections and 39 percent opposed it. When the high-spending state Supreme Court election of 2004 was mentioned, support for public financing rose to 61 percent, with 30 percent opposed.

“West Virginia’s voters understand that judges should be able to focus on the law, not on dialing for dollars,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. He appeared at a press conference held by the two groups at the state capitol in Charleston with Sen. Jeffrey Kessler.

“Public financing is a major step in protecting fair, impartial courts, and lawmakers will earn broad, bipartisan public support for taking this step,” Brandenburg added.

In West Virginia’s legislature, the House of Delegates voted 67-30 to approve a pilot public-financing program for state Supreme Court elections in 2012 (see Gavel Grab.) The legislation still must be considered by the state Senate.

A 2004 election that ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court thrust West Virginia into the center of public debate on how to protect courts from special-interest influence.  In Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately required a West Virginia justice to step aside from hearing a case involving Don Blankenship, a coal company executive who spent $3 million to help now-Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin win election.

In the poll, 68 percent of respondents found it a “serious problem” that judges elected to the bench got contributions from those who appear before them in court. When voters were reminded of Blankenship’s spending in 2004, that number spiked to 89 percent. 

Read more about Caperton in Gavel Grab, or read Justice at Stake?s amicus brief in the case.

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