September, 08 2010, 12:22pm EDT
Solid Bipartisan Majorities Believe Judges Influenced by Campaign Contributions
Independent Survey Caps Decade of Record-Shattering Judicial Elections
WASHINGTON
Large bipartisan majorities of
Americans believe elected judges give favored treatment to their
campaign bankrollers, and favor reforms to reduce the perception that
justice is for sale, according to a national poll released today.
The Justice at Stake Campaign commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct
a telephone survey, the results of which shows an openness to judicial
campaign reform that is almost identical among Democrats and
Republicans. Justice at Stake also noted that surveys of corporate
leaders, including those by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce suggest a
similar openness to judicial election reforms in the business community.
"The American mainstream wants courts to be off-limits to
special-interest money and partisan politics," said Bert Brandenburg,
executive director of Justice at Stake, a nonpartisan campaign with more
than 50 partner groups. "The new polling shows that the desire for
impartial courts is broad and bipartisan."
According to a new study co-authored by Justice at Stake, fundraising by
state Supreme Court candidates soared to $206.9 million in 2000-2009,
more than doubling the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s. Business
groups, plaintiffs' lawyers and other special interests have spent
millions to put preferred candidates on many state Supreme Courts.
In November, more than two dozen states will hold elections for Supreme
Court justices, including multiple high court contests on the ballot in
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington,
and Wyoming.
According to the telephone survey conducted between June 9 and 13, 2010
among a national cross-section 1,004 U.S. adults aged 18 or over,
Americans of both major political parties are deeply uneasy about
potential conflicts of interest caused by this flood of campaign cash:
- 71 percent of Democrats, and 70
percent of Republicans, believe campaign expenditures have a
significant impact on courtroom decisions. All told, 71 percent of
voters share this assessment; only 23 percent believe campaign
expenditures have little or no influence on elected judges. - 82 percent of Republicans, and
79 percent of Democrats, say a judge should not hear cases involving a
campaign supporter who spent $10,000 toward his or her election.
Instead, adults said, a neutral judge should hear such cases. This view
was held by 81 percent of all adults; only 8 percent of the American
public believes an elected judge should stay on cases involving major
campaign backers. - 88 percent of Republicans, and
86 percent of Democrats, say that "all campaign expenditures to elect
judges" should be publicly disclosed, so that voters can know who is
seeking to elect each candidate. Among all adults, 87 percent favor full
disclosure of campaign expenditures in court elections, and only 8
percent are opposed. - 69 percent of all adults,
including 73 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Democrats, said
they support a menu of reforms to reduce special interest influence in
the courtroom. Potential reforms raised in the survey included public
financing of state court elections and systems in which judges are
appointed to the bench, but require periodic voter consent to stay on
the bench.
Brandenburg noted that the survey
results are reflected among top legal authorities from both parties, and
by surveys of business leaders in recent years.
Prominent Republicans sounding the alarm about the threat of
partisanship and interest group money on the courts include retired
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B.
Olson, and Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. Prominent Democrats
calling for reforms include Michigan Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and
Wisconsin Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
"There have been efforts to transform concerns about court elections
into a Republican-Democrat issue, or a liberal-conservative issue,"
Brandenburg said. "Americans disagree. Public opinion surveys and
statements from prominent leaders in both parties show that Americans
don't like to see judges dialing for dollars from parties who might
appear before them."
Moreover, Brandenburg said, surveys of executives show similar results in the business community. A 2007 Zogby International poll,
commissioned by the Committee for Economic Development, showed that 79
percent of business leaders surveyed believe campaign spending
influences courtroom decisions. Pepsi-Co, Wal-Mart, Intel and Lockheed
Martin, signed a brief two years ago urging the Supreme Court to
require recusal where a judge receives "outsized campaign contributions"
from a party appearing before him or her.
Four of the nation's five highest-ranking states for best "lawsuit climate," according to the annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey
of corporate counsel and senior executives, also are states that
appoint judges using nonpartisan merit selection commissions. Four of
the five lowest-ranking states elect judges through competitive
elections, in which opposing special-interest groups spend heavily to
sway the outcome.
Harris Interactive conducted this most recent poll, as Justice at Stake
and two other reform groups were finalizing "The New Politics of
Judicial Elections 2000-2009: Decade of Change." The report, co-authored
by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money
in State Politics, is available here.
The new survey results confirm other surveys taken throughout the past
decade, showing that Americans of all political persuasions are deeply
uneasy with the idea that special interests can get the upper hand in
court cases by spending heavily to elect the judges hearing the case.
In various surveys cited by the "New Politics" report, 70 to 75 percent
of voters said they believe campaign cash affects courtroom
decisions-and even 46 percent of state judges surveyed in 2001 agreed. Other polls, available at Justice at Stake,
show strong support for public financing of court elections, and
tougher rules to disqualify judges from cases involving campaign
supporters.
# # #
About the Survey
The Harris Interactive survey was conducted by telephone within the
United States between June 9 and 13, 2010, among a nationwide cross
section of 1,004 U.S. adults ages 18 and older. Full survey results can be found here, and a full methodology is available.
We're a nationwide, nonpartisan partnership of more than forty-five judicial, legal and citizen organizations. We've come together because across America, your right to fair and impartial justice is at stake. Judges and citizens are deeply concerned about the growing impact of money and politics on fair and impartial courts. Our mission is to educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom--so judges can do their job protecting the Constitution, individual rights and the rule of law.
LATEST NEWS
To Push for Bold Treaty, Greenpeace Unveils Biden's Plastic Legacy Monument
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control."
Mar 28, 2024
Inspired by Atlas, who in Greek mythology carried the heavens on his shoulders, Greenpeace installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to pressure the Biden administration to support an ambitious global plastics treaty.
President Joe Biden "has the chance to cement a lasting legacy: He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said in a statement. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The third round of treaty talks ended in Kenya late last year with little progress—largely thanks to fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists along with allied governments. The next round of negotiations is set to be held in Canada next month.
The "Biden's Plastic Legacy" monument features the president kneeling and holding up an Earth full of plastic. The base has a written message: "Biden, the world's in your hands. Is this your plastic legacy?"
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis."
The statue's unveiling ceremony included remarks from Dr. Leo Trasande, a world-renowned environmental health researcher at New York University, and Jo Banner, who lives in Louisiana's Cancer Alley and co-directs the Descendants Project, an environmental justice group.
"The communities of color that live among the plastic manufacturers are first in line for the toxic mix of pollution they produce," said Banner. "Our health, bodies, and communities matter. We refuse to be treated as a mere checkmark on a list of concerns, and we cannot continue to be sacrificial zones."
"We need President Biden to truly listen to our needs and help create a strong global plastics treaty that protects communities like ours," she added. "We must ensure that Cancer Alley is confined to the past, not a part of the future we gift our children."
Trasande noted that in addition to the public health argument for cleaning up the plastic industry, there's an economic one.
"The chemicals found in plastics cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars because of increases in disease and disability," the doctor said. "The easiest way to stop these diseases is to address plastic production, and a strong global treaty is essential, for people here in the U.S. and around the world."
Research has repeatedly shown the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. A January study found that there are 240,000 plastic particles in the average liter of bottled water. Last September, researchers discovered microplastics in clouds, potentially "contaminating nearly everything we eat and drink via 'plastic rainfall.'"
A 2022 Greenpeace report revealed that U.S. households "generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste" the previous year, and the vast majority ended up in landfills or as pollution.
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis," Greenpeace campaigner Kate Melges said Thursday.
"The global plastics treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cleaner, safer planet," Melges argued. "President Biden must rise to this moment by supporting a strong plastics treaty that prioritizes human health, cuts production, and ensures a just transition for workers and communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Weak Biden Endangered Species Rules a 'Massive Missed Opportunity'
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures, since extinction is forever," one expert warned.
Mar 28, 2024
While welcoming efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to undo Trump-era damage to endangered species protections, conservationists warned Thursday that three new federal rules are inadequate, given the world's worsening biodiversity crisis.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which proposed the rules last June, said that they will "restore important protections for species and their habitats; strengthen the processes for listing species, designating of critical habitat, and consultation with other federal agencies; and ensure a science-based approach that will improve both agencies' ability to fulfill their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."
The Center for Biological Diversity—which had blasted the Trump administration for taking a "wrecking ball" to the decades-old law—praised the agencies for removing barriers to designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat as well as for restoring the "blanket rule" for threatened species and the ban on considering economic impacts of listing decisions.
However, the center also pointed out that "of the 31 harmful changes made in 2019 to the act's regulations, only seven are fully addressed and corrected in today's final rules," despite years of work on the new rules and nearly half a million public comments.
"We're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
"This was a massive missed opportunity to address the worsening extinction crisis," said Stephanie Kurose, a senior policy specialist at the center. "We needed bold solutions to guide conservation as the climate crisis drives more and more animals and plants to extinction. Instead we're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, similarly said that "while the regulations restore some essential wildlife protections, we were hopeful for far more than the marginal win the Biden administration delivered today."
"Our nation's threatened and endangered species are under constant attack and the Endangered Species Act is the only thing standing between them and extinction," she stressed. "We appreciate the administration's work on this matter, but at the end of the day much work remains to be done to ensure the Endangered Species Act can fulfill its critical lifesaving mission."
Experts at the environmental law organization Earthjustice also expressed disappointment that—as Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans put it—the Biden administration didn't fully seize "the opportunity to fully reverse the damage inflicted upon the Endangered Species Act and the imperiled species it protects."
Writing about former Republican President Donald Trump's gutting of the ESA—which Biden helped pass shortly after joining the U.S. Senate in 1973—Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen explained at The Progressive on Wednesday:
The dismantling of the ESA could not have come at a worse time. Scientists around the world are telling us that we are on track to lose a million or more species in this century. We have already witnessed a staggering drop of more than two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth since 1970. In the United States, nearly half of our ecosystems are now at risk of collapse. It is a staggering pace of loss that climate change is only accelerating.
It would have been far worse without the ESA. The law has saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf, one of my first "clients" when I began my career as an environmental lawyer more than two decades ago.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles declared Thursday that "we are in the midst of an extinction crisis; it is time for bold action."
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures," she noted, "since extinction is forever."
The new rules—expected to provoke lawsuits from farmers, ranchers, and right-wing groups—come as Biden and Trump prepare for a rematch in November.
"One of the lingering legacies of Donald Trump is his attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, one of the most successful and popular conservation laws in the history of the United States," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said Thursday. "At this moment, we should be listening to scientists and acting urgently to save biodiversity, not letting Donald Trump's gutting of environmental safeguards and sellouts to Big Business stand."
"President Biden has made generational investments in climate action with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but we need him to do more to protect imperiled wildlife," he added. "The Biden administration needs to protect more habitat, not less. We need the administration to increase protections for biodiversity, not abandon them. The president has the power, and we need him to use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular