August, 16 2010, 09:38am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charles Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454, chall@justiceatstake.org; or
Jeanine
Plant-Chirlin, Brennan Center for Justice,
at 212-998-6289 or jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu.
Is Justice for Sale?
Report Cites Exploding Costs, Role of Special Interests in State Court Elections; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Warns of ‘Crisis of Confidence’
WASHINGTON
Spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled
in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in
2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing
state jurists, according to a report released today.
For
more than a decade, partisans and special interests of all stripes have grown
more organized in their efforts to tilt the scales of justice their way. This
surge in spending-much of it funneled through secret channels-has
fundamentally transformed state Supreme Court elections.
The
report, "The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of
Change," is the first comprehensive study of spending in judicial
elections over the past decade. It was released today by the Justice at Stake
Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National
Institute on Money in State Politics.
In
a foreword, Sandra Day O'Connor, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, warned
that elected judges are widely seen by the public as beholden to campaign benefactors
who sometimes spend millions to sway court races.
"This
crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing," Justice
O'Connor warned. "Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is
for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to
uphold."
An
Executive Summary of the report is
available here. Among the report's key findings:
-
Spending
records were repeatedly shattered nationally and by state throughout the
decade. Candidates raised $206.9 million in 2000-2009, compared with $83.3
million in the 1990s. Twenty of the 22 states that hold at least some
competitive elections for judges had their most expensive election ever in the
last decade. -
A
select group of "super spenders" is outgunning small donors. In the
29 costliest elections in 10 states, the top five spenders each averaged
$473,000 per election to install judges of their choice, while all other contributors
averaged only $850 apiece. -
Judicial
elections are increasingly focusing not on competence and fairness, but on
promising results in the courtroom after election day. The tort reform wars
have driven this trend, with a half-dozen national business-funded groups, and
leaders of such corporate giants as Home Depot and AIG insurance, squaring off
against plaintiffs' attorneys and unions. -
A
TV spending arms race continues to escalate, creating a need for money that
only special interests can satisfy. In 2007-08, $26.6 million was spent on
Supreme Court TV ads, the costliest two-year ad cycle since tracking began in
2000. For the decade, supreme court candidates, special-interest groups and
political parties spent an estimated $93.6 million on TV ads. -
Special
interests are committed to dismantling spending limits, eliminating merit
selection of judges, and keeping campaign spending secret by assaulting decades
of disclosure laws. A campaign is underway to persuade federal courts to
downplay the Constitution's due process guarantee by reinterpreting the
he First Amendment to gut and weaken federal and state election laws. -
Many
judicial election spenders, including plaintiffs' lawyers and
corporations, have a passion for secrecy-using shell organizations to
keep their role out of the public eye. Such strategies are likely to continue
even after Citizens United, a Supreme Court decision that allowed
corporate and union spending in elections. This could make a true accounting of
special-interest spending impossible in 2010 and beyond.
"The
next decade will be a perilous time for fair courts," said Bert
Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a legal
reform group based in Washington. "For more than two centuries, Americans
have counted on judges to ignore political pressure. But the flood of
special-interest money is changing that. Without reforms, there is a real
risk of irreversible damage to public confidence in our courts."
According
to numerous polls taken throughout the decade, public concern is
widespread and bipartisan. Three in four Americans believe campaign cash
can affect courtroom decisions, and nearly half of state judges polled-46
percent-agree.
The
report is authored by James Sample, professor at Hofstra University Law
School, Adam Skaggs and Jonathan Blitzer of the Brennan Center for Justice,
Linda Casey of the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Charles Hall
of the Justice at Stake Campaign is the Editor.
"The
issues detailed in this report transcend America's partisan
divisions," said Sample, the report's lead author. "At
least when it comes to the courts, concern over the influence of green is not a
matter of red versus blue."
"This
explosion in spending fuels the growing public concern that judges will favor
the biggest spenders," said Skaggs, counsel at the Brennan Center.
"And with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United,
the amount of money flowing into judicial elections isn't likely to
diminish any time soon. That will mean increasing special interest pressures on
judges - and increasing public concern that justice is for sale."
One
positive cited in the report was a growing public desire to insulate courts
from special-interest money. States like Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin are responding to the new politics of judicial
elections with tools like public financing of judicial elections, consideration
of new judicial appointment/retention
election systems, and tougher ethics rules forcing judges to sit out cases
involving financial benefactors.
Justice
O'Connor, who has championed court reforms since retiring from the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2006, said in her letter introducing the report, "We all
have a stake in ensuring that courts remain fair, impartial, and independent.
If we fail to remember this, partisan infighting and hardball politics will
erode the essential function of our judicial system as a safe place where every
citizen stands equal before the law."
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down 4 'Unconstitutional' Voting Laws Passed by GOP
The laws disproportionately impacted the ability of Native people to participate in voting, the court noted.
Mar 28, 2024
Native rights groups were among those applauding a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late Wednesday as four voting restrictions, passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in the wake of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, were struck down as "unconstitutional."
The sweeping 2021 laws had ended same-day voter registration, eliminated the use of student ID cards as a form of identification for voters, banned the distribution of absentee ballots to teenagers who would turn 18 by Election Day, and prohibited third parties from collecting ballots and returning them on behalf of voters.
Indigenous rights groups and tribes including Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, the Blackfeet Nation, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in 2021 to challenge H.B. 176 and H.B. 530, the two laws pertaining to same-day registration and ballot collection.
Chief Justice Mike McGrath noted that Native people were disproportionately affected by the two laws, writing that it is "much more difficult on average for people living on reservations to either get to a polling place on or before Election Day, or to mail an absentee ballot prior to election day."
The summary of the majority opinion said the laws "violate the fundamental right to vote provided to all citizens by the Montana Constitution."
The court upheld a district court ruling from 2022.
"Today's Montana Supreme Court decision is a great victory for our clients and all Native Americans in Montana, who have asked for nothing more than the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney at the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Once again, courts have struck down the Montana Legislature's attempts to unconstitutionally burden the constitutional rights of Native Americans across the state. We will continue to fight for Native American voters in Montana and across the country to preserve their fundamental, constitutional right to vote."
Jacqueline De León, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, called the 4-3 ruling "a resounding win for tribes in Montana."
"Despite repeated attacks on their voting rights, tribes and Native voters in Montana stood strong, and today the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that the state's legislative actions were unconstitutional," said De León. "Native voices deserve to be heard and this decision helps ensure that happens."
Josh Douglas, a law professor at University of Kentucky, wrote at Election Law Blog that the state Supreme Court "put real teeth into [the] state constitutional protection for voters," recognizing that the Montana Constitution goes further than federal law in protecting voting rights.
As the state constitution reads, "All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
"The court refused to follow federal precedent, noting that '[t]his court can diverge from the minimal protections offered by the United States Constitution when the Montana Constitution clearly affords greater protection—or even where the provision is nearly identical,'" wrote Douglas. "State courts have various tools within state constitutions to robustly protect voters. The Montana Supreme Court's decision offers a solid roadmap for how to use state constitutional language on the right to vote. Other state supreme courts should follow the Montana Supreme Court's lead."
The ruling comes as Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) faces a competitive race for reelection.
Ronnie Jo Horse, executive director of Western Native Voice, said the ruling "reinforces the principle of equitable access to voting services and the protection of the rights for all voters."
"We are very pleased with today's landmark ruling," said Horse. "It stands as a testament to justice prevailing in defense of the rights of Montanans, especially those of Native American communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Bible Exposes Grifters': Trump Rebuked as Christian Nationalist 'Con Man'
"All those legal fees are apparently really making Donald Trump's pockets hurt because his latest commercial venture, after selling sneakers and cologne, is as a Bible salesman," said one critic.
Mar 28, 2024
Critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday derided the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee for hawking $60 patriotic-themed Bibles, with one prominent progressive cleric warning that the so-called Good Book "exposes grifters who try to exploit it."
The
God Bless the USA Bible—which is actually a rebranded 9/11 commemorative Bible first offered for sale in 2021 by country musician Lee Greenwood of "God Bless the USA" fame—has been slammed by devout Christians for having an American flag emblazoned on its cover and for containing nationalist documents including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Pledge of Allegiance.
"You all should get a copy of God Bless the USA Bible," Trump said in a 3-minute video promoting the book—which is not connected with his campaign. "You have to have it for your heart, for your soul."
"Replacing the real Bible with Trump Bibles is a too-perfect symbol of what has happened to evangelical Christianity."
Critics from across the political spectrum slammed what Slate senior writer Amanda Marcotte called Trump's "newest grift to squeeze money out of his cult followers."
"The not-at-all subtle message of the video is that Trump doesn't believe any of this faith-in-God crap, but he definitely believes in using Christian identity as a weapon to make money and dominate his foe," Marcotte wrote.
Bishop William Barber, the founding director of the Center for Public Theology & Public Policy at Yale Divinity School and a co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign,
said on social media that "the prophet Ezekiel named it in his day: Greedy politicians make an unholy alliance with false religion that says God is on their side when God has said no such thing!"
Conservative political commentator Charlie Sykes on Wednesday
blasted Trump for "commodifying the Bible during Holy Week," while former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that "instead of selling Bibles, you should probably buy one. And read it, including Exodus 20:14."
The volume's release comes during Christian Holy Week, and as Trump struggles to pay a $175 million bond after a New York judge found that he and his company committed massive fraud.
"Religion and Christianity are the biggest things missing from this country," Trump said in the promotional video. "It's one of the biggest problems we have, and it's why our country is going haywire. We've lost religion in our country."
"All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many. It's my favorite book," he added. "We must make America pray again."
Some observers noted how Trump used Christianity and the Bible as a prop during his White House tenure, including the time in 2020 when he ordered the violent dispersal of racial justice protesters in the wake of George Floyd's murder by Minneapolis police so he could pose for a photo-op outside a Washington, D.C. church.
Despite facing 91 federal and state criminal charges, Trump is all but certain to secure the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Christian nationalists have been busily preparing for a second Trump term, in part by drafting Project 2025, which one watchdog described as a "far-right playbook for American authoritarianism."
While his words and deeds may be antithetical to Christian doctrine, Trump is wildly popular among Evangelical Christians.
"Replacing the real Bible with Trump Bibles is a too-perfect symbol of what has happened to evangelical Christianity," Marcotte wrote. "The mistake is in believing Trump's followers are confused or ashamed about their devotion to a godless creep who laughs at true believers. In Trump's hands, the Bible is not a text for prayer and reflection, it's just a weapon. It's much easier to beat people down with a book if it's closed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Urged to 'Hold the Line' Against For-Profit Medicare Advantage Industry
"Do not let them bully you," said Alex Lawson of Social Security Works. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Mar 28, 2024
Opponents of healthcare privatization gathered at the White House on Thursday to send President Joe Biden a message from tens of thousands of Americans: "Do not give in to corporate insurers."
With the Biden administration set to unveil its final payment rate for privatized Medicare Advantage (MA) plans on April 1, Alex Lawson of Social Security Works and Brittany Shannahan of Public Citizen delivered around 28,000 petition signatures to the White House imploring Biden to "reduce MA rates to a level commensurate with traditional Medicare and recoup all overpayments."
"Do not let them bully you," Lawson said during a livestream in front of the White House on Thursday. "Corporate insurers are holding the country's health hostage and demanding bags of cash."
Medicare Advantage is a privately run program funded by the federal government, and the major for-profit insurers that dominate the MA industry are notorious for denying patients necessary care and overbilling the government by making patients appear sicker than they are—a practice known as "upcoding."
One recent study estimated that Medicare Advantage plans overcharge U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $140 billion per year, which would be enough to zero out Medicare Part B premiums.
"Medicare is under threat from greedy corporations that are more focused on profit than providing patient care," said Brittany Shannahan, a Medicare for All organizer. "This is a threat to Medicare. This should be on campaign ads."
The Biden administration is expected to propose a 3.7% payment increase for Medicare Advantage in 2025. More than 30,000 people have submitted comments opposing that rate, according to Social Security Works.
Insurers, a powerful lobbying force in Washington, D.C., are also pushing back on the administration's plan—demanding that they receive more, not less, government money.
"Taking our money and denying our care: That's their business model," Lawson said Thursday.
Lawson and Shannahan welcomed the Biden administration's recent efforts to curb Medicare Advantage overbilling and other abuses.
Survey results released earlier this week by Data for Progress show that the Biden administration's efforts to curtail MA plans' wrongful care denials and overbilling are overwhelmingly popular across party lines.
In a blog post on Tuesday, Just Care USA president Diane Archer noted that "since its inception," MA has "cost the Medicare program more per enrollee than traditional Medicare" even as it imposes "obstacles to care that don't exist for people in traditional Medicare, including burdensome prior authorization requirements and restricted physician and hospital networks."
"Our government is spending more and enrollees are too often getting fewer Medicare benefits than they would in traditional Medicare," Archer wrote.
In their remarks in front of the White House on Thursday, Shannahan and Lawson urged the Biden administration to "hold the line" and take bolder action to rein in Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
"We need to see more," said Shannahan. "We know that Medicare Advantage insurers are throwing around cash trying to make sure that they can continue to exploit their patients undetected and unchecked."
Carmen Rhodes, senior adviser and programs director at Be A Hero—a group founded by the late Medicare for All champion Ady Barkan—wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Thursday that the Biden administration must hold Medicare Advantage plans "accountable for their greed, not give them a raise."
"Hundreds of our grassroots supporters have shared their painful stories of being delayed or denied care by faceless, cruel insurance companies," Rhodes wrote. "Others reveal feeling tricked or even forced onto a Medicare Advantage plan and then being stuck in the 'Hotel California.' Their heartbreaking stories called Ady and now call all of us to take action."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular