Litigation

JAS to Wall Street Journal: Editorial Missed Target

By Peter Hardin

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial opposing merit-based selection of judges in Nevada missed the target, Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, suggested in a letter to the newspaper’s editor.

The editorial inveighed against “liberal groups who see the state courts as the next frontier for moving political agendas.”

Brandenburg’s reply undermined both the editorial’s theme and several of its asserted facts.

Across the political spectrum, Americans worry about special-interest money flooding judicial elections, and 76 percent of them have said they believe campaign cash affects courtroom decisions, he said.

Justice at Stake “does not support one system of selecting judges,” Brandenburg wrote to the Journal. In fact, its partnership includes those who back merit selection and those who seek other reforms, such as public financing of judicial campaigns; and it includes people of different political parties and ideologies. There are plaintiffs lawyers as well as Fortune 500 general counsels, he added.

Moreover the business world “does not share a phobia about merit-selection appointment systems,” his letter noted. Not only did a public opinion poll reflect a preference for merit selection by 71 percent of business leaders, but an annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey puts merit selection states at the top of list for “lawsuit climates.”

Brandenburg also corrected as “bogus” a claim made by the American Justice Partnership, suggesting a $45 million conspiracy to eliminate judicial elections. Barely 5 percent of that sum was furnished by the Open Society Institute to groups that favor merit selection over other systems.

Brandenburg concluded, “Keeping courts fair, and promoting high-quality judges, promotes a stable business environment and impartial justice for everyone. That is why this issue cuts across party lines.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 02, 2010 (boomark / email).