Legal News

Will West Virginia Set the New Model for Judicial Elections?

By Ashby Jones

It might not be quite as divisive as gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana or the death penalty, but we’re guessing that the issue of how states choose their judges is going to line up against the aforementioned as one of the legal-related issues that will crackle for years to come.

The current crucible for the issue is, as it was a few years ago, West Virginia. The West Virginia’s Senate recently voted to approve a bill that would offer public funds to future candidates for West Virginia’s Supreme Court.

The NYT on Friday weighs in with an editorial praising the West Virginia move, especially given the well-documented scandal the state suffered following the 2004 election, when the CEO of Massey Coal spent $3 million to help elect Brent Benjamin to the state’s high court.

Under the new proposal, Supreme Court candidates who raise a certain amount of small money will qualify to receive $200,000 for the primary election and $350,000 for a general election. More money might be provided to candidates opposing those who choose not to participate in the program and surpass certain spending levels.

Writes the NYT:

The measure aims to restore public trust in the integrity of the judiciary. It was badly eroded by Massey Energy's involvement in the election of Chief Justice Brent Benjamin, who then voted twice to throw out a major damage award against the company.
. . .
West Virginia, which will join North Carolina, New Mexico and Wisconsin in adopting public financing of judicial races, is setting a good example at a time when judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality is under severe threat across the country from escalating special-interest spending on judicial campaigns.

Interesting. We wonder if we’ll see more of this and, if so, just how effective it will be. Much of its success, we’d imagine, will hinge on whether ample amounts of money are teed up to enable a candidate to run a successful campaign.

We’re initially skeptical for a couple reasons. For starters, states are struggling badly. With unemployment hovering around or above 10 percent in many states, we can’t imagine freeing up funds for judicial elections is necessarily going to be at the top of many voters’ lists.

Furthermore, we’ve yet to fully see the impact of the Citizens United decision, which banned certain types of election spending by corporations and unions. Stay tuned.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 19, 2010 (boomark / email).