Litigation

?Citizens United? Impact on Judicial Elections Examined

By Peter Hardin

The Brennan Center for Justice has published a new report warning of potentially severe consequences for fair and impartial courts flowing from the Citizens United decision.

The report is entitled “Buying Justice: The Impact of Citizens United on Judicial Elections,” and it was written by Adam Skaggs.

Readers of Gavel Grab may be familiar with Skaggs from his writing a New Republic commentary (click here for the post), but the  Brennan Report has extensive detail.  It warns about pressure on judges:

“Just last year, the Supreme Court ordered a West Virginia judge disqualified from hearing the case of a campaign supporter who had spent extravagantly to elect the judge. It did so after concluding that, by refusing to step aside from hearing his benefactor?s case, the judge had violated the opposing party?s constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial court.

“Yet, by opening the door to expanded corporate spending in judicial races, Citizens United is likely to make this type of conflict of interest more common, and to increase pressures on judges who seek to remain independent and impartial.”

The report also examines the impact of Citizens United on public trust in the courts:

“Equally important, heightened spending in judicial races will almost certainly exacerbate existing public concerns that justice is for sale to the highest bidder.  As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent, the Citizens United decision came at a time ‘when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch.’”

The Brennan Center is a partner of Justice at Stake. When Justice at Stake submitted an amicus brief in the case, it warned of potentially dire consequences for courts in states that elect judges.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 06, 2010 (boomark / email).