Montana: Six justices defend rule banning partisan judicial endorsements | Independent Record

Six of the seven Montana Supreme Court justices have filed a friends-of-the-court brief asking a federal judge to uphold a 2008 state judicial rule that prohibits judicial candidates from seeking or accepting partisan endorsements. Former Justice William Leaphart of Helena filed the brief on behalf of Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justices Jim Rice, Michael Wheat, Patricia Cotter, Beth Baker and James Jeremiah Shea. Justice Laurie McKinnon didn’t join in the effort. Leaphart was responding to a federal lawsuit filed by Mark French, a justice of the peace candidate in Sanders County and an unsuccessful Republican candidate for the U.S. House in 2010. Last month, French sued to challenge a rule in the state Montana Code of Judicial Conduct to strike down the rule that prohibits candidates for judicial offices from seeking or accepting partisan endorsements.

Florida: High court weighs campaign cash in judicial races | Miami Herald

The Florida Bar said it stands behind its position that judicial candidates should not personally solicit contributions, but that appellate courts across the country have taken differing positions. When Lanell Williams-Yulee began running for a Hillsborough County judgeship in 2009, she signed a letter to would-be supporters seeking contributions for her campaign. Now, five years later, Williams-Yulee’s letter could spur the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a First Amendment debate about whether it is constitutional for Florida and other states to bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Williams-Yulee’s attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue, after the Florida Supreme Court in May rejected arguments that the ban is unconstitutional and found that Williams-Yulee violated a code of conduct.

Montana: Officials ask high court to review party endorsements in judicial races | The Missoulian

The state’s attorney general and political practices commissioner have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a 2012 federal appeals court decision that struck down Montana’s ban on political party endorsement of candidates in the state’s nonpartisan judicial races. The case involves an attempt by the Sanders County Republican Central Committee in 2012 to endorse candidates for an open Montana Supreme Court race and in a contested race for district judge in the district that includes Lake and Sanders counties.

Pennsylvania: Lawmakers propose removing state judges from Pennsylvania ballots | TribLIVE

Jaye Cawkins stepped out of her polling place not entirely sure about what she’d just done. Like many of the 1.6 million people who voted in Pennsylvania on Nov. 5, Cawkins didn’t know much about the judicial candidates on the ballot. They’re not like other politicians, who knock on doors for votes, run races with more media coverage and compile easily-digestible records of their votes, she said. “There’s no way you can sit and go over every one” of a judge’s decisions, said Cawkins, 56, of the North Side. Pennsylvania is one of seven states that elects judges in partisan elections, according to the American Bar Association. Two state representatives — Bryan Cutler, R-Peach Bottom, and Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia — introduced a bill to change that.

Indiana: Lawsuit challenging how judges are elected advances | Indianapolis Star

A lawsuit challenging how Marion County judges are elected will move forward in federal court in Indianapolis. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard L. Young last week denied the state’s request for an immediate appeal of an order refusing to dismiss the lawsuit. It is unclear, however, if the case will be resolved before next year’s judicial elections in Marion County. The lawsuit, filed in November 2012, challenges a state law that essentially allows political parties, rather than voters in a general election, to determine who is selected as a Superior Court judge in Marion County.

Ohio: Court Expands Ballot Access Rights for Independent Candidates in Judicial Elections | Ballot Access News

On September 9, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously expanded the ability of independent candidates to run for judicial office, including not only judgeship elections, but elections for Clerk of a Court. The decision is State ex rel Coughlin v Summit County Board of Elections, 2013-3867. Ohio and Michigan have peculiar elections for judicial office. Candidates are either nominated in partisan primaries or in party conventions, or they can petition directly onto the general election ballot if they do not wish to be entangled with political parties. But, oddly, no party names ever appear on the ballot for these elections. Ambiguity in the English language makes it unclear whether to refer to such elections as “partisan” or “non-partisan.”

Texas: An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections | Andrew Cohen/The Atlantic

In early June the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the longtime progressive advocacy group, released the results of a landmark studyon “the effect of campaign contributions on judicial behavior.” The statistics confirmed what former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and countless other observers of our legal systems have long contended: Judicial elections impair the fair administration of justice by fostering impermissible appearances of impartiality by judicial candidates and judges. In seeking votes, in acting like politicians, judges invariably lose what they ought to prize most: their perceived credibility as neutral arbiters of cases and controversies. When I read the study, the first person I thought of was Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, a popular and successfully reelected jurist whose campaign-style website I wrote about last year for The Atlantic. Justice Willett, it seems to me, is the poster-child for the results of the ACS study. Indeed, he should have been on its cover. So I reached out to him, asked him to read the ACS study, and to then answer for me a few questions about his perceptions about judicial elections and the role campaign contributions play in them. About a month ago, he graciously complied in a way that was both candid and frightening.

Montana: Appeals court: Montana judicial candidates can receive political endorsements, money | The Missoulian

An appellate court panel’s decision to allow political parties to endorse candidates and make expenditures in Montana’s nonpartisan judicial elections will stand, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday. None of the 9th Circuit judges voted to rehear the three-judge panel’s June decision, so the appellate court denied the state attorney general’s petition. The panel said in June the state’s ban on party endorsements and expenditures in judicial races is unconstitutional, but ruled that candidates can’t receive direct contributions from parties. The state filed a petition for rehearing, calling it a matter of exceptional importance in Montana’s authority to determine how to maintain an impartial and nonpartisan judiciary.

Editorials: Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality | James Nelson/The Missoulian

Sen. Jon Tester recently introduced a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would end corporate personhood rights, overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The utility of such an amendment may be debated, since Citizens United was based on First Amendment free speech law, not referring to corporate personhood as a basis for the decision. Citizens United ushered in the unprecedented use of dark, institutional mega-money to influence elections and, effectively, silence voices of individual small contributors and ordinary voters. The Supreme Court’s approach and subsequent court cases have chipped away at contribution limits by individuals, corporations, unions, special interests groups, “non profits” and trade associations. This has resulted in millions of dollars pouring into elections with little or no disclosure of the source of funding and with little, if any, accountability for truth and accuracy of their messages. Candidates are being “marketed” to voters in the same fashion that fast food and frozen vegetables are hawked to consumers.

Wisconsin: Fewer elections for top court would restore civility, public trust, special task force says | Wisconsin State Journal

Limiting Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to a single 16-year term would help restore public confidence in a court whose image has been battered by increasingly savage political campaigns fueled by a rising tide of money, a special task force of attorneys says. The state Bar of Wisconsin panel wants to see a constitutional amendment introduced this fall to change the system that allows justices to run for unlimited 10-year terms, said Joe Troy, a former circuit judge who led an 18-month study that resulted in the proposal. “The campaigns have become so brutal,” Troy said. “The sitting justice is attacked and demeaned, and the challenger is attacked and demeaned. The public sees that and thinks we must not have very good justices.” The proposed term limits aren’t a cure-all, but they would help restore public trust in the system, Troy said. “No justice, once elected, would ever be elected again,” Troy said. “The perception that they are there serving the people (with money) who put them there, or they are worried about the next election, that’s just not going to happen.”

Editorials: Ohio’s chief justice offers intriguing suggestions for improving the way we elect the state’s judges | Toledo Blade

Ohioans continue to insist on the right to elect the state’s judges. We demand accountability, even though many of us don’t bother to vote in judicial elections and complain that we know next to nothing about the candidates. The Blade has long believed that Ohio would do better to select judges on the basis of professional merit rather than popular election. But because that won’t happen soon, if ever, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor suggests the next best thing: strengthening the way we elect judges. Justice O’Connor is inviting Ohioans to consider and debate eight issues related to judicial elections. Several of the proposals would require changes in state law or the Ohio Constitution. She notes that judicial elections in Ohio get 25 percent less voter participation, on average, than races at the top of the ballot. She suggests two ways to combat this decline: moving judicial races higher on all ballots, and holding state and county judicial elections in odd-numbered years (when elections for municipal judgeships already occur), so they would be less likely to compete with more attention-grabbing contests and ballot issues.

National: Business donations to judges’ campaigns often equal friendly rulings | McClatchy

State supreme court justices are favoring the corporate interests that finance their election campaigns, a comprehensive new study concludes. With more judicial elections now awash in dollars, the study of several thousand court decisions found a relationship between business-affiliated contributions and how justices voted. The more business money a supreme court justice has received, the more likely she or he is to support business litigants, according to the yearlong study by the American Constitution Society, a liberal advocacy group. “We have reason to be worried,” study author Joanna Shepherd said Tuesday. “Business groups tend to spend far more on judicial elections than any other interest group.”

Ohio: Chief justice starts promising debate on election reforms | CantonRep.com

Maureen O’Connor, chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, is following in the big footsteps of her predecessor, the late Thomas Moyer. While she is not proposing election reforms in the two areas that Moyer felt strongest about, she shares his concern about maintaining the integrity of courts across Ohio and his interest in educating Ohioans about how the courts work and how judges are elected. This leadership is welcome. The eight changes O’Connor proposed last week should start an important conversation across the state.

National: Judicial elections in 2012: voters rejected the politicization of the courts | Slate Magazine

Tucked away in last Tuesday’s national election results was a bona fide mandate, on a scale that presidents can only dream of. Voters across the country rejected a multifront crusade to bully judges and politicize courtrooms. That doesn’t mean, though, that the war against the independent judiciary is over. The situation looked far graver two years ago. In 2010, in a breakthrough moment, three Iowa Supreme Court justices were swept from the bench after ruling—as part of a unanimous court—that the state constitution protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Meanwhile, Supreme Court justices in Alaska, Colorado, and Illinois also faced aggressive efforts to oust them in retention elections, where voters decide whether or not to keep an incumbent judge. The following year, a record-breaking number of bills were filed to impeach or remove judges. Legislators also sought to weaken merit selection, whereby a nonpartisan screening commission provides a governor with a list of potential nominees.

Editorials: Judicial Elections and the Bottom Line | NYTimes.com

This year, 32 states will be holding contested elections or retention votes for judges on their highest courts. An ideological battle inFlorida, an expensive and partisan one in North Carolina and others are providing uncomfortable lessons about why judges on the highest courts should be appointed rather than elected. Elections turn judges into politicians, and the need to raise money to finance ever more expensive campaigns makes the judiciary more vulnerable to improper influence by donors.Special interests, like the casino, energy and hospital industries and others, have been heavily involved and sometimes find their ways around disclosure rules and exert their influence through independent expenditures, reducing race after race into a contest of slogans. In six states where spending has been especially heavy — Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas — the harm to justice is well documented.

Montana: Judge upholds Montana law forbidding political endorsement of judicial candidates | The Missoulian

A federal judge Tuesday refused to block Montana’s law forbidding political parties from endorsing a nonpartisan judicial candidate, saying their involvement could transform judicial contests into partisan races. U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena said Montana clearly has an interest in maintaining a fair, impartial judiciary – and that keeping political parties out of judicial elections might be allowed to achieve that goal. “If … political parties were permitted to endorse nonpartisan judicial candidates, then the elections might be nonpartisan only in form,” he wrote. “Nonpartisan elections, perhaps, can truly be nonpartisan only if political parties are prohibited from endorsing candidates.” The Sanders County Republican Central Committee has asked to strike down the endorsement ban, saying it’s an infringement on the committee’s free speech. The GOP group wants to endorse candidates in judicial races, saying it would like to promote judges who “share its ideological views.” In Montana, judges run for their positions, but are nonpartisan, meaning they run with no party affiliation.

Montana: Judge upholds Montana law forbidding political endorsement of judicial candidates | The Missoulian

A federal judge Tuesday refused to block Montana’s law forbidding political parties from endorsing a nonpartisan judicial candidate, saying their involvement could transform judicial contests into partisan races. U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena said Montana clearly has an interest in maintaining a fair, impartial judiciary – and that keeping political parties out of judicial elections might be allowed to achieve that goal. “If … political parties were permitted to endorse nonpartisan judicial candidates, then the elections might be nonpartisan only in form,” he wrote. “Nonpartisan elections, perhaps, can truly be nonpartisan only if political parties are prohibited from endorsing candidates.”

Texas: Judicial election recount shelved because of cost | Houston Chronicle

A Republican judicial candidate who had sought a hand recount of all mail ballots cast in her race has dropped her request, in part because of the cost of pursuing the recount. Challenger Donna Detamore thought she had beaten County Civil Court-at-Law No. 2 incumbent Theresa Chang at the end of primary election day but found herself 226 votes behind the next morning. County Clerk Stan Stanart blamed the late delivery of about 2,700 mail ballots for the post-midnight shift in the tally. Detamore said she planned to pursue a hand-recount of those paper ballots, but GOP and county officials learned that state law does not allow a partial recount in the race.

Editorials: North Carolina, Meet Citizens United | NYTimes.com

The North Carolina Judicial Coalition is a new tax-exempt organization, known as a super PAC, supported by wealthy conservative Republicans who are determined to make this year’s race for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court ideological and expensive. This kind of influence in judicial elections is a direct result of the Citizens United decision, which allows corporations and unions to make unlimited so-called independent expenditures in campaigns. In a dissent in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens predicted that such spending would overwhelm state court races, which would be especially harmful since judges must not only be independent but be seen to be independent as well. North Carolina is proving him right.

Montana: Judge indicates campaign law on judicial races may fall | The Billings Gazette

A federal judge Friday indicated he may strike down a long-standing Montana campaign law that bans political parties from spending money on or endorsing nonpartisan judicial candidates. But U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena declined to suspend the law before Montana’s primary election next Tuesday, saying the issue needs a wider hearing before taking such action. “I think this is a very serious issue and the plaintiffs have a sound and authoritative basis for their position,” Lovell said. “But I do agree that further hearings are going to be required.” Lovell set a hearing for June 11 on whether the ban should be suspended while he considers a request from the Sanders County Republican Central Committee to declare the law unconstitutional. The local Republican Party committee sued Tuesday to overturn the law, saying it wants to endorse candidates running for the Montana Supreme Court and a local state district judgeship. Its lawsuit said the ban clearly violates the committee’s right to free speech, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Republican Party group also said “left-leaning judges” are making “increasing intrusions” into state policy, and that it wants to endorse candidates that “share its ideological views.”