For Immediate Release


Charles W. Hall of Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454
Cynthia Canary, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, 312-335-1767

Justice at Stake

New Guidelines Help Judicial Candidates

WASHINGTON - Civic groups in five Great Lakes states are calling on more than 700 judicial candidates to follow new campaign conduct guidelines that help them steer clear of special interest pressures and political agendas.

A nine-page memo, mailed to candidates in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, warns of the dangers posed by rising campaign costs, angry and misleading television ads, and growing ethical quandaries over what to say on the campaign trail about cases that might land in court.

But it also said that judicial candidates can and must negotiate these challenges, to promote continued public confidence that courts are fair, impartial and accountable to the law. Indeed, candidates were advised that their campaigns are a "golden opportunity" to positively educate the public about the role of courts.

"Special interest pressure may be rising, and canons of conduct might be loosening, but judicial candidates have all the power they need to preserve public confidence in impartial courtsif their own conduct is guided by a series of best ethical practices," the document says.

The memorandum was authored by the Midwest Democracy Network, an alliance of political reform networks in the five states, and the Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan national partnership that works to keep politics out of the courts.

"Unfortunately, the Midwest has been a Ground Zero for court elections that have all the worst aspects of special interest politics," said Michael McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which is a member of the Midwest Democracy Network. "Weגre hoping to help judicial candidates run campaigns that are clean, fair and educate the voting public."

Wisconsin set a spending record of $6 million last spring, in a bitter race between Michael Gableman and incumbent Louis Butler. In 2004, two Illinois Supreme Court candidates raised a combined total of $9.3 million, prompting winning candidate Lloyd Karmeier to say, "Thats obscene for a judicial race. ҅ How can people have faith in the system?"

Ohio and Michigan also have been marked by record spending Supreme Court elections, and the trend occasionally has filtered down to lower court elections.

"The public fears that campaign cash and special interest pressures are corrupting the courts," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. "Now is the time for judicial candidates to step forward and reassure the public that they will be accountable to the law, not political pressure."

Moreover, judges at all levels have been affected by a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, that eroded restrictions on what candidates can publicly declare about hot-button issues. Groups have barraged candidates with questionnaires demanding to know their positions on legal issues they might eventually rule on.


If you think a better world is possible, support our people-powered media model today

The corporate media puts the interests of the 1% ahead of all of us. That's wrong. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

If you believe the survival of independent media is vital to a healthy democracy, please step forward with a donation to nonprofit Common Dreams today:

The memowhich was sent to every candidate running for Supreme Court, appellate courts and local trial courts in the five statesחoffers "concrete proposals and common-sense wisdom to help candidates keep judicial campaigns from becoming a race to the bottom."

Judicial candidates were urged to follow these specific tips on campaign speech, fund-raising and interest group pressure:

Use election campaigns as an opportunity to educate the public about how courts work, how they protect civil liberties, and where they fit in the Constitutionגs system of checks and balances.

Avoid expressing viewsחin public and in interest group questionnaireson issues they rule on. And judges who are elected should be ready to recuse themselves from cases involving issues they do publicly discuss.

Limit how much money they will take from a single source or category of contributorand never make promises "explicit or implied," that a judge will decide cases in a particular way.

Promote civil campaigns by dissociating themselves from groups that make misleading statements about an opponent, and by working with campaign conduct committees to ensure clean campaigns.

"Judges play a special role in protecting our rights and ensuring that everyone has their day in court," said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, and a leader of the Midwest Democracy Network. "Our memorandum gives judicial candidates the tools they need to campaign in way that promotes confidence in the courts, and not erode it."

Note: A full copy of the judicial candidates memo can be accessed at
The document went to 719 judicial candidates and was signed by 11 members of the Midwest Democracy Network:

Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Citizen Advocacy Center
Heartland Democracy
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
League of Women Voters of Ohio
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund
Michigan Campaign Finance Network
Minnesota Council of Nonprofits
Ohio Citizen Action
Take Action Minnesota
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign


This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news outlet. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.

Please select a donation method:

Share This Article