Reformers Hope High Court Decision Will Kill Judicial Elections
Fair Courts E-lert
Bibliographic Info:
Author: Tony Mauro
Source: The National Law Journal
Date: 2/1/2010
Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court believes that there may be “a silver lining” in the Citizens United ruling: “for those of us who have been trying to impress upon the public the deleterious effects of money in these elections,” the Court’s decision “helps us make the point that we need to get the money out.” Advocates of merit selection of judges – including Moyer, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and Rebecca Kourlis of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System – see in the Supreme Court’s recent decision a chance to “revitalize” their push for reform. But whether or not calls to replace elections with merit selection systems will succeed remains an open question. According to Stanford’s Pam Karlan, although Citizens United may stoke public fears about the influence of campaign money on judges, people “still want to elect their judges.” Still, frustration with the role of money in state high court elections has intensified since the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Caperton v. Massey last June. In Caperton, the Court “held . . . for the first time . . . that campaign contributions threaten judicial neutrality and could serve as grounds for recusal under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” writes Morgan Smith at the Texas Tribune. Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, lamented the “corrosive influence of money in judicial elections” a year ago, in his State of the Texas Judiciary Address, and state legislators in Texas have sought to formalize recusal standards for judges over the past year, though bills to that end have largely languished.
See also Morgan Smith, Odor in the Court, Texas Tribune, February 2, 2010