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
Plastics Summit 'Die-In' Highlights Need to Cut Production
"This week governments have a choice: Stand up to this slash-and-burn approach by agreeing to radically reduce plastic output, or let the world be held to ransom by a dying industry."
Apr 23, 2024
As the fourth round of talks for a global plastics treaty kicked off in the Canadian capital on Tuesday, campaigners with the corporate accountability group Ekō staged a die-in at Ottawa's Shaw Centre to demand an ambitious plan to reduce production.
"Plastic pollution has reached the snows of Antarctica, the deepest oceans, even the clouds in the sky—and still fossil fuel corporations are trying to ramp up production," explained Ekō campaign director Vicky Wyatt. "This week governments have a choice: Stand up to this slash-and-burn approach by agreeing to radically reduce plastic output, or let the world be held to ransom by a dying industry. It's very clear to people across the planet which way they need to go."
Demonstrators—some wearing fish masks to highlight how plastic pollution impacts marine biodiversity—gathered in front of a 28-foot banner that used plastic trash bags to spell out: "Plastic is poisoning us. Cut production now."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Participants in the die-in—which followed the weekend's "March to End the Plastic Era" through the Canadian city—held smaller signs with similar messages, demanding that governments and industry "stop fueling climate chaos."
As Common Dreamsreported last week, new research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California shows that planet-heating pollution from the plastics industry is equivalent to that of about 600 coal-fired power plants, and 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions from plastic production are released before the plastic compounds are even created.
The protesters also highlighted that more than 180,000 Ekō members have signed a petition urging action on plastic pollution. The petition specifically calls for banning all plastic waste exports from the European Union and fully implementing the Basel Convention within the bloc, while the summit has a global focus and the plan is to have a treaty by the end of this year.
After countries agreed to draft a treaty two years ago, the latest talks in Kenya last year were flooded by fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists and ended with little progress, increasing attention on the Canadian meeting that began Tuesday and is scheduled to run through Monday.
"It's a crucial moment of this process," Andrés Gómez Carrión, chair of the negotiations and an Ecuadorian diplomat in the United Kingdom, toldReuters on Monday. "One of the biggest challenges is to define where the plastics lifecycle starts and define what sustainable production and consumption is."
Petrochemical-producing countries including China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia "have opposed mentioning production limits" while E.U. members, island nations, and Japan aim to "end plastic pollution by 2040," the news agency reported. The United States supports that timeline but "wants countries to set their own plans for doing so" and submit pledges to the United Nations.
"We are facing a global plastics crisis that requires urgent, global action. Reducing plastic production needs to be a core component of the solution," Christy Leavitt, campaign director at Oceana in the United States, said in a statement. "Countries must act now to stop the flood of plastic pollution that is harming our oceans, climate, health, and communities by starting at the source to reduce its production."
"The U.S. should support a strong, legally binding plastics treaty that addresses the full life cycle of this persistent pollutant from extraction and production to use and disposal," Leavitt added. "Now is the time for the United States to show its support to reduce plastic production, eliminate unnecessary single-use plastics, prohibit hazardous chemicals in plastics, and establish mandatory targets for reuse and refill systems. The United States and the world must act before it's too late."
Greenpeace last month installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol to send President Joe Biden a message.
"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 of Biden. "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 petrochemical industry, Reuters noted, "argues that production caps would lead to higher prices for consumers, and that the treaty should address plastics only after they are made."
Sam Cossar-Gilbert of Friends of the Earth International emphasized the need to resist corporate pressure in a statement Tuesday.
"A people-powered movement and some governments are proposing ambitious steps to address the plastic problem, like regulating the harmful waste trade, single-use bans, and reducing global plastic production," said Cossar-Gilbert. "But multinational corporations will also be lobbying with their false solutions, distractions, and delays. Only by stamping out corporate capture can we deliver a new global treaty to end plastic pollution."
Mageswari Sangaralingam from the green group's Malaysian arm, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, stressed the need for strong waste management policies, given that Global South countries have become dumping grounds for richer nations' discarded plastic.
"Waste colonialism, whether in the form of trade in plastic waste and other hidden plastics, perpetuates social and environmental injustice," said Sangaralingam. "However, ending the plastic waste trade without reducing plastic production will likely trigger more dumping, cause toxic pollution, and contribute to the climate crisis. The global plastics treaty is an opportunity to plug loopholes and address policy gaps to end plastic pollution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
South Korean Court Hears First Asian Youth Climate Case
"Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later," said one plaintiff's mother. "But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
Apr 23, 2024
One of South Korea's two highest courts on Tuesday began hearing Asia's first-ever youth-led climate lawsuit, which accuses the country's government of failing to protect citizens from the effects of the worsening, human-caused planetary emergency.
Nineteen members of the advocacy group Youth4ClimateAction filed a constitutional complaint in March 2020 accusing the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
The lawsuit also notes "the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change," as well as the government's obligation to prevent and protect citizens from environmental disasters.
"South Korea's current climate plans are not sufficient to keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C, thus violating the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights," the plaintiffs said in a statement.
South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change https://t.co/XRIGE23KGM pic.twitter.com/snvqBaGGe9
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 23, 2024
Signatories to the 2015 Paris agreement committed to "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
A summary of the lawsuit notes that South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, and that the government is constitutionally obligated to protect Koreans from the climate emergency.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the Korean Parliament "gave the government total discretion to set the GHG reduction target without providing any specific guidelines." Furthermore, they contend that the government's downgraded reduction targets fall "far short of what is necessary to satisfy the temperature rise threshold acknowledged by the global community."
Lee Donghyun, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, toldReuters: "Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later. But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
The South Korean case comes on the heels of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Switzerland's government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' warnings to swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The ECHR ruled on the same day that climate cases brought by a former French mayor and a group of Portuguese youth were inadmissible.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, and Peru also have human rights-based climate cases on their dockets.
In the United States, a state judge in Montana ruled last year in favor of 16 young residents who argued that fossil fuel extraction violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment."
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is trying to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Rights Chief Demands International Probe of Mass Graves Near Gaza Hospitals
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," said Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Apr 23, 2024
The United Nations' human rights chief on Tuesday called for an international investigation into mass graves discovered at two Gaza hospitals that Israeli forces recently assailed and destroyed, further imperiling the enclave's barely functioning healthcare system.
Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement that he was "horrified" by the discovery of mass graves at the Nasser and al-Shifa medical complexes, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reduced to ruins.
More than 300 bodies were reportedly discovered in the mass grave near the Nasser facility in Khan Younis, Gaza, and eyewitnesses said Israeli soldiers executed civilians during their two-week-long raid of al-Shifa last month.
Türk demanded an "independent, effective, and transparent" probe into the killings and mass graves, adding that "given the prevailing climate of impunity, this should include international investigators."
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," he added. "And the intentional killing of civilians, detainees, and others who are hors de combat is a war crime."
"Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price."
The IDF's destructive attacks on Nasser and al-Shifa were part of a broader Israeli assault on Gaza's healthcare system. An analysis released Monday by Save the Children found that the rate of monthly Israeli attacks on healthcare in Gaza since October has exceeded that of any other conflict around the world since 2018.
The group estimated that Israel has launched an average of 73 attacks per month on healthcare in Gaza—and at least 435 attacks total since October.
"After six months of unimaginable horror, the healthcare system in Gaza has been brought to its knees," said Xavier Joubert, Save the Children's country director in the occupied Palestinian territory. "Healthcare workers are risking their lives daily to give Palestinian children a chance at survival. The constant attacks on healthcare are simply unjustifiable and must stop. Palestinian children must have unimpeded access to services, including healthcare and education."
Türk also used his statement Tuesday to condemn Israeli forces' killing of women and children in airstrikes on the southern Gaza city of Rafah in recent days. The human rights official noted that Gaza doctors rescued a baby from the womb of her mother as the latter succumbed to head injuries from an Israeli strike.
"The latest images of a premature child taken from the womb of her dying mother, of the adjacent two houses where 15 children and five women were killed—this is beyond warfare," said Türk. "Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price in this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular