Litigation

Report Asks: Is Justice for Sale?

By Peter Hardin

The first-ever decade overview of spending on state court races reveals an explosion of special-interest money. In a foreword to the report, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warns of a “crisis of confidence’ in elected courts.

News media across the nation immediately gave widespread attention to the report, which was authored by Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and Hofstra University law professor James Sample.

The report showed that spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing state jurists.

The surge in spending by partisans and special interests of all stripes for more than a decade has fundamentally transformed state Supreme Court elections, the report concluded.

Justice O’Connor wrote in the foreword that elected judges are widely seen by the public as beholden to campaign benefactors who sometimes spend millions to way court races. “This crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing,” Justice O’Connor warned. “Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”

“The next decade will be a perilous time for fair courts,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, in a press release. “For more than two centuries, Americans have counted on judges to ignore political pressure. But the flood of special-interest money is changing that. Without reforms, there is a real risk of irreversible damage to public confidence in our courts.”

Adam Skaggs, counsel at the Brennan Center, remarked that “with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, the amount of money flowing into judicial elections isn’t likely to diminish any time soon. That will mean increasing special interest pressure on judges-and increasing public concern that justice is for sale.”

A Washington Post article said the “exhaustive study” found “that much of the increase has been fueled by outside groups funding attack ads of the kind commonly found in partisan races for the White House, Congress, or governors’ mansions. Industry groups, trial lawyers and others are increasingly targeting specific judges for removal over rulings that hurt their financial bottom line.”

A NPR report said the study “documents an arms race that’s escalating among business groups, trial lawyers and unions. They’re all competing to raise money to put their favorite candidates on the bench.” The NPR account was headlined: “Report: Too Much Money Going to State Court Races.”

An Associated Press article quoted law professor Sample as saying, “These corporations and trial lawyers have millions of dollars at stake, and they feel if they can just spend a few million dollars to influence the outcome, it’s worth it.” Sample added, “We’re sort of playing with fire when you’re putting this much money into our courts.”

Some news media highlighted findings in the report from their states. A Detroit Free Press article was headlined, “Michigan supreme court races sure to draw big spenders, study says.” The Birmingham News headline stated, “Alabama judges spend far more on elections than other states in 2000-2009.” In the Philadelphia Inquirer, a headline said, “Study: Pa. judicial elections big on special-interest donations.”

In the Columbus Dispatch, an article was headlined, “Ohio’s high-court races are flush with cash.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, “Nevada ranks 8th in Supreme Court election fundraising.” A report by the Capitol Times highlighted Wisconsin’s judicial election spending, and an article by Cincinnatti.com focused on data in the report about Ohio.

The Brennan Center and the National Institute are partners of Justice at Stake. You can see the executive summary of the report by clicking here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on August 16, 2010 (boomark / email).