Litigation

Wall Street Journal Parrots a Bogus Claim

By Charlie Hall

In early September, the American Justice Partnership tried to startle the world with its claim that a Justice at Stake funder has spent $45 million to end competitive judicial elections. Today, the Wall Street Journal parroted that claim in its ongoing attacks against judicial election reform.

For those who missed Justice at Stake’s initial response to the AJP claims, we reiterate: The American Justice Partnerhip’s fictitious $45 million conspiracy is utterly bogus. The report is so rife with untruths that it ought to come attached with a warning: “reader beware.”

As we wrote in September, only a small fraction of the grants listed by AJP–$2.6 million, or 5 percent of the total claimed–actually goes to groups that favor merit selection of judges.  Most recipients have no positions on state judicial elections at all. Justice at Stake’s position on merit selection versus other reforms is posted on our site.

Equally bogus is the AJP’s, and Journal editorial’s, claim that judicial reform groups have a partisan agenda. Justice at Stake’s partnership is broad and bipartisan, including Republicans and Democrats, and plaintiffs’ counsel and corporate counsel, to name just a few.

Why so much concern? Because there’s a real problem.

As noted in “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change,” spending on high-court elections exploded in the last decade. The American Justice Partnership, a creation of the National Association of Manufacturers, helped drive this trend, spending more than $2 million to sway state judicial elections across the country. Others playing the same game included plaintiffs’ lawyers, unions, and a host of national groups with mysterious financial backing.

More than seven Americans in 10 believe that campaign cash affects courtroom decisions, including large majorities from both parties. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in a letter introducing the “New Politics” report:

“This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 22, 2010 (boomark / email).