Litigation

Judicial Elections: ?Lunacy on the March?

By Peter Hardin

How do our judicial elections appear through the lens of a British publication?

“Lunacy on the march” is the headline for a commentary in the Democracy in America blog of the  Economist magazine. Here are a few observations from the blog post by Charlotte Howard, an Economist correspondent, who quotes the Justice at Stake Campaign for some of her data:

“AMERICA’S system of choosing judges is crazy. The process for seating Supreme Court justices has its flaws, but the real circus takes place in the states. Most elect their judges. Judicial elections have become expensive and ugly, the battleground for a tort war between trial lawyers and the chamber of commerce.”

In Illinois, a state Supreme Court justice already has spent $393,009 on TV advertising in order to keep his seat in a retention election, the blog reports, quoting from Justice at Stake; the retention fight comes “thanks to controversy over a medical malpractice ruling.”

“In this mucky landscape, Iowa has long been a beacon of reason,” the posting continues, alluding to the merit selection system in Iowa. “But this year even Iowa has succumbed to judicial mania,” it adds, discussing the effort to oust three state Supreme Court justices over the high court’s decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Regarding Republican Bob Vander Plaats and his leadership in the ouster drive, the blogger concludes:

“I can only hope that Mr Vander Plaats is not victorious. The retention election has become a referendum on a specific court decision, Varnum [v.  Brien]. If the justices are ousted, their replacements will fear that a decision could remove them, too. A justice should work to apply the constitution, not please a certain constituency. If Mr Vander Plaats is successful, he will have undermined a rare, rather good system.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 12, 2010 (boomark / email).