Litigation

?Weakened Courts? from Judicial Election Ruling?

By Peter Hardin

In the Midwest, federal appeals court decisions have stirred up concerns about higher-spending, increasingly politicized judicial elections in at least two states.

An Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision cited free speech protections in overturning Minnesota’s limits on fundraising and endorsements by judicial candidates (see Gavel Grab).

The ruling “clears the way for bigger spending in what are typically sleepy judicial races at the bottom of the ballot,” according to an Associated Press article. In dissent, Judge Kermit E. Bye wrote:

“The court today has unnecessarily weakened our courts — and ultimately, I fear, weakened our democracy.”

In Ohio, a newly filed lawsuit asks a federal court to throw out Ohio’s limits on judges advertising their party affiliations or personally soliciting campaign donations, after the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned similar rules in Kentucky (see Gavel Grab).

The lawsuit was lodged by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Ohio Democratic Party and three Democratic candidates for judgeships, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

In addition, the lawsuit seeks to overturn an Ohio law under which judicial candidates run in partisan primaries, but in the general election they are required to appear on ballots without party labels, according to a Toledo Blade article.

Nancy Brown, judicial specialist for the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said she feared the lawsuit “is going to be one further step in politicizing judicial elections.” She added:

“As we go down this route, it further undermines the difference between the judiciary and the executive and legislative branches?.If the courts move in this direction, it makes it all the more important that Ohio think seriously about moving to a better system. Most states do not elect judges.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 31, 2010 (boomark / email).