Litigation

MS Commentary Cites JAS, Urges Election Reform

By Peter Hardin

The national momentum for reform in how we elect judges continues to build. One week, a legislature votes. Another week, a column or editorial forcefully advocates reform based on what states have done, or on new data about election spending. The latter was the case this week in Mississippi.

David Hampton, editorial director of the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, challenged in a column both the idea of electing judges and the way it has been practiced, and he concluded that reform is imperative. Hampton predicated part of his concern on data from Justice at Stake showing a startling increase in fundraising for judicial elections in states.

On the idea of electing judges, he wrote: “[T]he idea of judges raising money, backslapping and asking anyone for a vote is contrary to what the system of justice should be. A judge should not be elected by political popularity. A judge should have no constituency but the law.”

On how elections play out, he wrote: “[J]udicial elections are political and are becoming more special-interest and big- money driven every year…There is creeping influence, starting with Supreme Court posts, in which special interests are knee-deep into Mississippi judicial races.”

Hampton touched on public financing of judicial elections as one idea getting traction in some states, and on appointive and retention (up-or-down) election systems in other states; he concluded by voicing aloud a fear that special-interest influence only will get worse, saying that reform in Mississippi is needed now.

To learn more about public financing, see Gavel Grab and a Justice at Stake issues page on the topic; for more about appointive and retention systems, check out a different JAS issues page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 12, 2010 (boomark / email).