November, 03 2010, 10:44am EDT
2010 Judicial Elections Increase Pressure on Courts, Reform Groups Say
WASHINGTON
Election Day 2010 brought a new
round of special interest money, nasty ads and wedge issue politics into
America's courtrooms, breaking several spending records and spreading
costly, ideological hardball campaigns into new states.The roar of this
year's national politics-which favored populists and partisans, and
tilted against incumbents and the establishment-played out in judicial
elections and referenda in a number of states.
In Michigan, Supreme Court
candidates were vastly outspent by political parties and an out-of-state
group in a TV ad war whose cost was estimated at $5 million to $8
million. In Alabama, combined spending exceeded $3.2 million. Election
costs remained modest in North Carolina, which offers public financing
to qualifying appellate court candidates.
In Iowa, three Supreme Court justices were ousted after out-of-state
interest groups spent nearly $700,000 to unseat them over their votes in
a 2009 gay marriage case. But organized efforts to unseat high court
justices failed in Illinois, Colorado, Alaska, Kansas and Florida.
Non-candidate groups spent heavily on TV ads in Michigan and Ohio, while
Iowa and Illinois set records for the most expensive retention
elections ever in their states.
As they have done several times over the last decade, voters rejected
efforts to change judicial selection systems.In Nevada, Question 1,
which would have replaced competitive elections with judicial
appointments and retention contests, was defeated.But in Kansas, voters
in District 1 also defeated efforts to scrap a merit selection system
and switch to competitive contests.
"Pressure on impartial justice is growing," said Bert Brandenburg,
executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign."Judges are facing
more demands to be accountable to interest groups and political
campaigns instead of the law and the constitution."
Through Monday, Nov. 1, 2010, slightly more than $12 million was spent
nationally on TV air time this year in state supreme court elections.Of
that, nearly $5.1 million - 42% of total spending for the year - was
spent in the week leading up to the election, between Oct. 26 and Nov.
1.
Including $4.6 million spent on TV ads in 2009, the current total for
the 2009-2010 election cycle is approximately $16.6 million, about the
same amount spent on judicial television advertising in the last
non-presidential election cycle, 2005-2006.
"As in past years, judicial election campaigns featured substantial
numbers of hard-hitting, mud-slinging attack ads - many of which were as
nasty as those seen in any political campaigns," said Adam Skaggs,
Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Final estimates ofTV ad spending, as recorded by TNS Media
Intelligence/CMAG, are expected within a few days. Complete candidate
fundraising data often are not fully available until weeks, and in some
cases months, after the elections, meaning that total campaign cost
totals tend to rise with time.
Three in four Americans believe that the special-interest money needed
to finance such elections influences court decisions. From 2000 through
2009, fundraising by high-court candidates surged to $206.9 million,
more than double the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s.
This year, heavy spending and angry TV ads spread to several states
holding retention elections, which in 2000-2009 had accounted for barely
1 percent of spending in high court races. This year, high-court
retention elections in Illinois, Iowa, Colorado and Alaska resulted in
about $4.6 million in total costs-more than twice the $2.2 million
raised for all retention elections nationally in 2000-2009.
In most of the 15 states where 37 justices stood in retention elections,
however, campaign expenditures were far lower than in competitive
election states.
Overall, 33 states held some type of election. In addition to the 15
states holding one-candidate retention elections, in which incumbents
needed a "yes" vote to stay on the bench, 11 states held competitive
elections for 18 seats. In seven other states, there were no challengers
in elections that technically were competitive, granting automatic
victory to the candidate on the ballot.
The following is a round-up of major trends in the 2009-10 judicial
election campaign season, as identified by the Justice at Stake Campaign
and the Brennan Center for Justice. Further information is available at
the Judicial Elections 2010 web site.
TV Ad Data
Television ads ran this year in fourteen states with elections for the
state supreme court:Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas,
Washington and West Virginia.
Michigan saw the highest overall spending on supreme court TV ads, with
about $5.1 million spent on airtime, according to TNS Media
Intelligence/CMAG; Ohio is second with more than $1.9 million in airtime
spending.In both of these states, four candidates competed for two
Supreme Court seats.(An additional Ohio Justice, Paul Pfeifer, ran
unopposed in a vote in which no TV advertising has aired.)
The highest level of spending in a single-candidate retention race was
in Illinois, where incumbent Justice Thomas Kilbride spent more than
$1.6 millon on TV airtime through Nov. 1.
For the year, spending on television advertising in supreme court races
was evenly split between judicial candidates and non-candidate
groups.Through Nov. 1, candidates spent more than $6.1 million on
television advertising, while non-candidate groups - including political
parties and special interests - accounted for 49% of all television
airtime, spending more than $5.9 million.
Four of the top five spenders on TV airtime in supreme court elections
are non-candidate groups.The Michigan Republican Party ranked first
overall in TV spending (just over $2 million).Kilbride ranked second
($1.6 million); the Michigan State Democratic Party ranked third ($1.4
million); the Partnership for Ohio's Future ranked fourth (about
$846,000); and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which spent more
than $780,000 in support of two Republican candidates for the Michigan
Supreme Court, ranked fifth.
"Many of the harshest ads were aired by political parties and special
interest groups, which accounted for about 49% of all spending on
television ads in state supreme court elections," Skaggs said.
Through Nov. 1, spending on TV airtime in states holding
single-candidate retention elections has totaled approximately $2.1
million - approximately 17.5% of all TV spending during that time.This
level of spending in retention contests is the greatest since the
Brennan Center for Justice began compiling judicial TV ad data in 2000.
Major states
Iowa
All three state Supreme Court justices appearing on a retention ballot
were voted out, following a withering attack on a unanimous 2009 ruling
that overturned a state law banning gay marriage. The margin of defeat
was similar in each case, with about 55 percent voting "no" on another
term. Robert Hanson, the Polk County trial judge who initially ruled in
favor of gay marriage, won his retention vote.
Out-of-state groups attacking the
high-court justices included the National Organization for Marriage, the
American Families Association, the Family Research Council, the
Campaign for Working Families and Citizens United. Along with in-state
groups, reported spending to oust the three justices was about $800,000.
Fair Courts for US, a group headed by former governor Robert Ray,
reported spending nearly $400,000 in support of retaining the justices,
raising total Iowa election costs to $1.2 million. More than half, about
$700,000, came from out of state.
Iowa's supreme court had not seen a contentious retention election
before this year. The election raised concerns that wedge issues could
make it more difficult for courts, in Iowa and elsewhere, to rule in
hot-button legal disputes.
"Under our constitutional system, courts are designed to be different
from the other branches of government," Brandenburg said. "If judges in
any state begin basing their decisions on political pressure and
campaign spending, instead of the facts and the law, everyone loses."
Nevada
Question 1 was put on the ballot after spending on Nevada high court
elections rose, and after a 2006 Los Angeles Times report unearthed
questionable fundraising practices by Las Vegas trial judges. But
voters, by a margin of about 58 to 42 percent, chose to keep their
current system of nonpartisan competitive elections.
The election continued a trend of states preserving their existing judicial selection system, whether elective or appointive.
"The politics of 2010 made it a difficult climate to ask voters to
change how they picked judges," said Bert Brandenburg, executive
director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. "And yet many voters remain
concerned about campaign cash in the courthouse."
Candidates for Nevada high court raised $9.8 million in 2000-2009, ranking the state eighth nationally.
Illinois
In one of the year's most extraordinary races, Justice Thomas L.
Kilbride reported raising more than $2.5 million, while the Illinois
Civil Justice League reported raising $648,000 to defeat him. Kilbride
retained his seat with 68 percent of voters favoring another term.
Although the campaign was prompted by a business ruling, in which the
Illinois court overturned legislative limits on medical malpractice
awards, the league focused on Kilbride's record in crime cases,
memorably running an ad in which actors playing felons savor their
violent crimes and say Kilbride took their side in court.
"In Illinois, special-interest money bought one of the most tasteless TV
ads ever appearedin a court election, while a sitting justice raised
millions of dollars from plaintiffs' lawyers and other parties who will
appear in court," Brandenburg said. "In 2004, Justice Lloyd Karmeier
called Illinois election spending 'obscene,' and it's hard to see how
this year did anything to restore public trust in that state's courts."
As in 2004, unions and plaintiffs' firms backed the Democrat. National
business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American
Justice Partnership, and the American Tort Reform Association, backed
the opposition campaign.
Michigan
Including TV, Michigan was the nation's most expensive judicial election state in 2010.
Non-candidate groups, led by the state Republican and Democratic parties
and the Virginia-based Law Enforcement Alliance of America, accounted
for more than 80 percent of all TV spending.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks satellite captures of major
TV markets, has recorded $5.1 million in TV ads, as of Nov. 1. The
Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which checks TV station ad records,
placed the total at more than $8 million.
"Political parties and independent groups hijacked this election,
heavily outspending the candidates, and ads on both sides were riddled
with questionable claims," Brandenburg said. "Michigan remains a ground
zero for negative, costly court elections."
The two incumbents reported the highest campaign fundraising. About two
weeks before the election, Republican Robert Young, who won in a
landslide, reported raising $776,000, while Democrat Alton Davis, who
lost, raised $691,000. According to the most recent fundraising reports,
total fundraising among four candidates was just over $1.8 million.
Ohio, Alabama
Ohio and Alabama, the two most expensive states for the 2000-2009
decade, showed that high court campaigns can generate big numbers in
even relatively quiet years.
Of the $3.2 million reportedly raised by Alabama candidates through Oct. 19, Republicans outraised Democrats four to one.
In Ohio, the most recent reports showed that candidates had raised $2.7
million, with the Republicans outraising the Democrats. In addition, the
Chamber-related Partnership for Ohio's Future spent more than $840,000,
according to Brennan Center data.
Colorado, Alaska, Kansas, Florida
In Colorado and Alaska, campaigns opposing the retention of sitting
justices made substantial efforts but were unable to win. Alaska Justice
Dana Fabe got a 53 percent yes vote, despite a campaign by social
conservatives. Three Colorado justices survived a challenge by Clear the
Bench Colorado that focused on tax and spending issues.
"As in Iowa, 'Vote No' campaigns showed that judges in many states must
look with more concern than at the impact of single-interest protest
groups," said Skaggs. "More than ever, a single vote in a single legal
dispute might haunt judges at election time, and that will make it
harder for many to focus on facts and the law, instead of political
agendas."
Attempts by social conservatives in Kansas, and by Tea Party activists
in Florida, failed to gain significant traction on announced efforts to
unseat justices in their states.
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
Database Exposes 'Illicit Network Undermining Democracy Around the World'
Yanis Varoufakis hailed the effort as "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
Apr 17, 2024
"Coups. Assassinations. Riots. Detentions. Disinformation. We know the tactics that have been deployed to undermine our democracies. But who is behind them?"
Progressive International (PI) asks and answers this and other questions with an extensive new database published Wednesday that connects the dots in what the leftist group calls the "Reactionary International"—a loose global network of right-wing leaders and organizations working to subvert democratic institutions.
PI calls it an "illicit network undermining democracy around the world."
"Today is a mask-off moment for the Reactionary International and the parties, politicians, judges, journalists, foundations, think tanks, tech platforms, NGOs, activists, financiers, and entrepreneurs that comprise it," PI said.
"After a year of preparation, we finally open the doors to our new research consortium, exposing the global network of reactionary forces that corrode our democracies, destroy our planet, and drive us closer to world war," the group added.
"The twin insurrections at the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and BrasÃlia's Three Powers Plaza in 2023 left no doubt about the international coordination of reactionary forces," PI argued. "Yet far too little is known about the entities of this network, their sources of financing, and their institutional allies operating inside our political systems."
Ultimately, PI aims to "support democratic systems to become more resilient to their insidious tactics."
From leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and former U.S. President Donald Trump—the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee—to evangelical Christian groups influencing laws in African countries criminalizing LGBTQ+ people and tech companies empowering ubiquitous state surveillance, Reactionary International is a who's-who of the world's right-wing forces.
A cursory search of the database's contents shows users can:
- Learn about Israel's NSO, Rayzone, and Team Jorge, and how a team of Tel Aviv tech entrepreneurs fuel unrest in Latin America;
- Meet the Grey Wolves, Turkey's roving death squad with links to President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan and the ethno-nationalists in his governing coalition; and
- Explore the global network of the Falun Gong, its Trump-connected media outlet The Epoch Times, and its traveling dance troupe known as Shen Yun.
Yanis Varoufakis, a PI member and secretary-general of the left-wing Democracy in Europe Movement 2025, called the database "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
PI invites the public to contribute to the database.
"Together, we will not only name, shame, and expose the forces of the far right—but also dismantle their network of complicity," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP State AGs Ask EPA to 'Eviscerate' Crucial Environmental Justice Tool
"Many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities," said one advocate.
Apr 17, 2024
Led by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, Republican leaders in 23 states on Tuesday filed a petition making clear their aim to allow petrochemical companies and other corporations to continue operating pollution-causing facilities without regard for the "disparate impact" they can have on low-income communities of color.
The attorneys general of states including Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan, asking him to amend Title VI under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The law prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against residents based on race and national origin and allows residents to petition the EPA arguing that state agencies have intentionally discriminated or disparately impacted a particular community.
Title VI has underpinned hundreds of legal cases, including recent EPA investigations into the 85-mile stretch of land in Louisiana known as Cancer Alley, where dozens of petrochemical plants have been built and health experts have observed a disproportionate number of cancer cases and other medical problems among the predominantly Black population.
The attorneys general said they object to the Biden administration's use of Title VI to "advance what it calls 'environmental justice,'" and complained that the EPA aims to create "a condition in which no racially or economically defined group experiences adverse environmental impacts."
Andre Segura, vice president of litigation at the environmental legal group Earthjustice, said Wednesday that the Republican attorneys general aim to "eviscerate civil rights protections just to make it easier for industrial polluters to continue with business as usual."
"Everyone should be alarmed by these outrageous efforts," said Segura. "The fact is, many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities, without regard for the health and safety of residents."
Manuel Fernandez, president of Miami-Dade County Democrats in Florida, said the effort was "embarrassing" and called on Moody to resign.
The petition was filed three months after U.S. District Court Judge James Cain Jr., an appointee of former President Donald Trump in Louisiana, ruled that Title VI requirements amount to "government overreach."
The EPA halted its Title VI investigation into the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) last year a month after Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, sued the agency over its Title VI regulations. The EPA had been probing whether the LDEQ placed the historically Black town of St. John the Baptist Parish at risk by allowing companies to build petrochemical plants nearby.
There are more than 50 pending cases regarding Title VI violations, Earthjustice said.
"These decades-old Title VI regulations are critical tools for the federal government to use to ensure that funding is not used to perpetuate this toxic legacy," said Segura, "and the EPA should swiftly reject this petition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Governors Show 'How Scared They Are' of Workers Organizing With UAW
Congressman Greg Casar said the Republicans behind a new joint statement "sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors."
Apr 17, 2024
As Volkswagen workers in Tennessee began voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers, progressive critics on Wednesday continued to call out six Southern GOP governors for jointly saying they "are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the UAW has brought into our states."
Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas issued their statement in response to "the largest organizing drive in modern American history," which the UAW launched after major contract wins following a strike targeting the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—last year.
"As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by," the Republican leaders said, claiming that "unionization would certainly put our states' jobs in jeopardy" and the UAW is "making big promises to our constituents that they can't deliver on."
"We have serious reservations that the UAW leadership can represent our values. They proudly call themselves democratic socialists and seem more focused on helping President [Joe] Biden get reelected than on the autoworker jobs being cut at plants they already represent," the governors added, nodding to the union's January endorsement of the Democrat—UAW president Shawn Fain also called the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, a "scab."
What actually threatens American workers?\n\u274c Anti-union, anti-worker propaganda like this\n\ud83d\udcb0 Corps that put profits over people\n\u26d1\ufe0f Safety standards not being met\n\n@GovAbbott & @GovernorKayIvey sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors here. @UAW backs American workers!— (@)
The Economic Policy Institutesaid Wednesday that the governors' anti-union statement "clearly shows how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages will upend the highly unequal, failed anti-worker economic development model of Southern states."
Responding to the statement on social media, the Congressional Labor Caucus declared that "we speak up when we see threats to workers' rights. Workers must be allowed to choose whether to form a union on their own—free from influence from their employers or politicians. Shame on these governors for putting out this anti-union propaganda."
After Ivey shared the statement on social media, Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, asked, "Better wages and working conditions are against the values of your state?"
MSNBC's Chris Hayes was even snarkier, jokingly calling the statement "yet more evidence of the populist, pro-worker turn of the Trump-era GOP."
The UAW vote in Chattanooga, Tennessee is set to wrap up on Friday. Then, attention is expected to shift to Vance, Alabama. Workers at a nonunion Mercedes-Benz plant there submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board earlier this month requesting an election to join the union.
Noting Ivey's social media post about the statement, Diana Hussein, who does communications work for the UAW, said: "She's mad cuz she wants to keep the Alabama discount that leaves workers behind. No more! #StandUpUAW."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, also took aim at Ivey, saying, "You used Alabama taxpayers' money to have state troopers escort out-of-state scabs to break the strike of YOUR constituents."
Nelson explained that she was referring to the "hardworking" United Mine Workers of America members employed by Warrior Met, "who were fighting for the right to see their families more than a few days a year."
More Perfect Union told Ivey that "unions only threaten your values if you value denying workers a living wage and good benefits."
In contrast with the Republican governors, around two-thirds of the Senate Democratic Caucus in January wrote to 13 nonunion automakers—including Mercedes and Volkswagen—urging them not to illegally block UAW organizing at their plants.
"We are concerned by reporting at numerous automakers that management has acted illegally to block unionization efforts," the senators stressed, citing multiple examples. "These retaliatory actions are hostile to workers' rights and must not be repeated if further organizing efforts are made by these companies' workers. We therefore urge you all to commit to implementation of a neutrality agreement at your manufacturing plants."
Welcoming their letter, Fain said that "every autoworker in this country deserves their fair share of the auto industry's record profits, whether at the Big Three or the Nonunion 13. We applaud these U.S. senators for standing with workers who are standing up for economic justice on the job."
"It's time for the auto companies to stop breaking the law and take their boot off the neck of the American autoworker," the union leader added, "whether they're at Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, or any other corporation doing business in this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular