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
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Says Israel 'Will Stand Alone' as Biden Threatens to Withhold Arms
"If we have to, we will fight with our nails," the Israeli prime minister said in response to the American leader's warning against a major Rafah invasion.
May 09, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday responded to U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold shipments of arms used by the Israel Defense Forces to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians by declaring that his far-right government would continue its assault on Gaza with or without American help.
"If we are forced to stand alone, we will stand alone," Netanyahu said in a video ahead of next week's anniversary of Israel's establishment in 1948, largely via the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs. "I have already said that if we have to, we will fight with our nails."
Echoing Netanyahu, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the IDF already has the "necessary weapons" to wage war, "including in Rafah," where over 1 million people forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents, all of them bracing for a full-scale Israeli invasion.
The prime minister's remarks came a day after Biden threatened to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah—even as critics noted that Israeli forces have already attacked and entered the city. Some accused Biden of walking back a previous "red line" warning against any assault on Rafah.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Biden is delaying shipments of two types of bombs to Israel in order to send a message that the president's tolerance for what he called Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gazan civilians is waning.
However, observers noted that Biden recently signed off on $14.3 billion in emergency armed assistance for Israel atop the nearly $4 billion the key ally already receives from Washington each year. The Biden administration has quietly approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October 7, while pushing for billions of dollars worth of additional deals, including advanced fighter jets.
Biden has also repeatedly bypassed Congress to fast-track weapons transfers to Israel as it wages what the International Court of Justice in January called a "plausibly" genocidal war that's killed, injured, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—mostly women and children—since October 7.
The U.S. administration also provides diplomatic cover for Israel's policies and practices in the form of United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Despite all this support—which comes as most election-year voters supporting Biden's Democratic Party believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Thursday tweeted, "Hamas ❤️ Biden."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular