Litigation

In Battleground States, Calls for Reform

By Peter Hardin

Two newspapers in states with scorching judicial elections are surveying the political battlegrounds and ensuing public distrust, and they’re concluding that reform is crucial.

A Chicago Tribune editorial urges a switch to merit selection of judges after it frames a high-spending retention race for Justice Thomas Kilbride, a Democrat, as mainly a partisan political battle for dominance on the Illinois Supreme Court.

In Alabama, which has the nation’s costliest state Supreme Court elections, an Anniston Star editorial excoriates a “checkbook judiciary” and a high court “almost exclusively in the hands of judges bought and paid for by deep-pocketed interests who prefer a legal system that tips the scale in their favor.”

The editorial urges possible steps, including an appointment/retention election system, to bring balance to the high court.

ILLINOIS: The red-hot retention election facing Justice Kilbride is the highest-spending retention contest in the state’s history, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a Justice at Stake partner.

The incumbent’s campaign has raised more than $2.48 million since July 1, including more than $1.4 million from the Democratic Party. A group working aggressively to oppose him, JUSTPAC, the political committee of the Illinois Civil Justice League, has reported ore than $667,000 in contributions, according to the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

Justice Kilbride’s second largest supporter is the Illinois Federation of Teachers and its political committee, with more than $454,000 in donations and in-kind support. JUSTPAC, meanwhile, has benefited by donations from the American Justice Partnership ($180,000), a wing of the American Manufacturers Association; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($150,000); the American Tort Reform Association ($88,920) and the Illinois State Medical Society PAC ($50,000).

Because the high court could ultimately decide upon state redistricting and who controls the legislature, it is considered a key political prize. State House Speaker Michael Madigan (a Democrat) and organized labor want to keep a Democratic majority on the court, the Tribune editorial says, while “business wants Kilbride out.” The editorial board, which has endorsed Justice Kilbride, laments this picture:

“[W]hatever happens in this race, it will be a hollow outcome.

“This kind of election challenges every judge’s independence.

“If Kilbride wins, he will go back to the court knowing who put up $2.48 million to save his career. If he loses, the justices will know that a controversial decision can make them the target of a $667,000 campaign to cut short their careers.”

The editorial goes on to say that “this business of electing judges has got to go. We need a merit selection system.” At stake, it suggests, is public trust: “The public can’t have confidence in judges when their elections are dominated by gaudy cash from interest groups ? or the speaker of the House.”

ALABAMA: The Anniston Star editorial cites from a recent report co-authored by Justice at Stake on soaring  expenditures in judicial elections to trace the history of  “a two-decade battle waged by large corporations and social conservatives to win Alabama?s high court.”

“Both sides in Alabama are playing this bidding war for our courts, and that?s bad,” the editorial continues. “The public already distrusts the pay-for-play system of electing judges.”

The editorial suggests the state eliminate partisan elections for the high court and move to a system that includes “races free from political party affiliation, more stringent rules on campaign financing, and an appointment/retention-election system where voters get the chance to leave a judge on the bench or remove him or her.”

In an effort to “better balance the court,” the editorial concludes, “the aim is to pursue justice that does not tip the scale one way or the other, but to fill seats with judges who aren?t beholden to one side of the partisan divide.”

The extent to which judicial elections get heated in Alabama is reflected in an Opelika Auburn News article, headlined “Slander alleged in Ala. Supreme Court race.” State Republicans accused the campaign of Democratic Judge Mac Parsons of slander, over a TV ad that accuses Republican Justice Tom Parker of not paying taxes. You can read the GOP press release here. Judge Parsons’ campaign did not retreat, the Birmingham Press-Register reported.

To learn more about election contests in Illinois and Alabama, check out Justice at Stake’s Judicial Elections 2010 page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 27, 2010 (boomark / email).