| NEW YORK
- October 29 - The campaign being waged for a seat on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is producing yet another state judicial election that is radically changing the way we select judges in the United States. The election, scheduled for November 6, has replaced the traditional focus on judicial candidates and their qualifications with a contentious debate over advertising and money from outside groups determined to influence the ideological balance of the court. The Brennan Center’s Judicial Independence Project has been studying Pennsylvania as part of its scholarship on the selection of judges.
Since its inception three years ago, the Judicial Independence Project of the Brennan Center for Justice has become a leading source of information and commentary on state judicial elections. Project attorneys have written a range of position papers and opinion pieces on judicial elections and the judicial selection process generally. Their insight and analysis has been a resource for pieces published in The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, American Lawyer, and other national outlets.
Deborah Goldberg, Democracy Program Deputy Director, leads the project. She is a nationally recognized expert on judicial selection and independence, speaking frequently to national audiences and consulting states on proposed legislative reforms. The New York Times’ Anthony Lewis called Brennan Center Associate Counsel Mark Kozlowski, “the best informed source on the subject: informed about the present and about history.” The NYU Press will publish Mr. Kozlowski’s book on the power of the judiciary in 2002.
Both Mr. Kozlowski and Ms. Goldberg can offer comment on the situation in Pennsylvania and put it into the context of the national trends surrounding judicial selection. Their analysis has found that state judicial elections have undergone a sea change in recent years. Developments include:
$ An explosion of campaign expenditures on judicial elections.
$ Concern over the sources of judicial campaign funds, especially with respect to the involvement of lawyers and businesses likely to appear before these same judges.
$ The vast expansion of involvement in judicial races by interest groups, such as trial lawyers and business organizations, which run advertising independently of the campaign of any particular candidate. Such independent activity allows these groups to broadcast vituperative advertisements that would be improper if aired by a judicial candidate and also allows these independent groups to escape regulations regarding disclosure of the sources of campaign funds.
$ The increasing use of coarse and aggressive campaign speech by judicial candidates themselves and the consequent stress placed on judicial ethics rules which mandate that candidates conduct campaigns in a manner consistent with the dignity and impartiality of the judicial office.
The Project also produces the Court Pester E-Lert, which closely monitors the nation=s popular and legal press for a range of issues relating to the judiciary, including state judicial elections. Summaries of articles and opinion pieces are compiled and emailed to subscribers twice weekly. The E-Lert is now received by hundreds of judges, legal journalists and law professors, among others. To subscribe to the Court Pester E-lert, please see the Brennan Center’s web site at www.brennancenter.org, or send an email to brennan.center@nyu.edu.
For more information or to contact Center staff, please call Amanda Cooper at 212.998.6736.
The Brennan Center for Justice unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Its mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms.
###
|
