Resources
State Judicial Elections
Campaign Cash Finds Its Way to the Courtroom
Outside the realm of presidential politics there is a looming — and very serious — threat to our justice system. Despite all the attention focused on money in politics, few Americans know how much campaign cash is pouring into courts of law, and how it threatens to undermine equal justice for all.
Commentary
Authored by: Adam Skaggs and Bert Brandenburg
– 12/14/11
Letter to Tennessee Supreme Court on Proposed Judicial Conduct Rules
The Brennan Center and Justice at Stake submitted comments to the Tennessee Supreme Court urging adoption of proposed new judicial conduct rules, including a recusal rule on campaign spending. The comments were based largely on a Brennan Center report on recusal reform after Caperton, which identified the Tennessee proposal as one of the two most promising in the country.
Statements & Testimony
Authored by: Adam Skaggs
– 11/09/11
The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2009-10
How special interest "Super Spenders" threatened impartial justice and emboldened unprecedented legislative attacks on America's courts.
Publications
Authored by: the Brennan Center for Justice, Justice at Stake Campaign, and the National Institute of Money in State Politics
– 10/26/11
Outside Groups Dominate Spending in Judicial Elections, New Report Shows
Non-candidate spending in state high court elections nearly doubled as a share of total costs in 2009-10, compared to the previous off-year election, a new report shows.
Press Releases
– 10/26/11
Brennan Center Endorses ABA Judicial Disqualification Resolution
The American Bar Association’s House of Delegates is expected to vote today on a resolution calling on states to adopt new rules for judicial disqualification. Brennan Center Senior Counsel Adam Skaggs released the following statement in support of the resolution.
Press Releases
– 08/08/11
Promoting Fair and Impartial Courts through Recusal Reform
To assist state courts in responding to the need for recusal reform, the Brennan Center for Justice has collected model rules that provide a blueprint for state implementation.
Publications
Authored by: Adam Skaggs and Andrew Silver
– 08/08/11
Citing Unique Role of Judges, Groups Urge Court to Uphold Public Finance Law
Declaring that judges play a unique role in our governmental system, two nonpartisan national reform groups urged a federal appeals court today to uphold Wisconsin’s Impartial Justice Act, which provides for public financing of state Supreme Court elections.
Press Releases
– 06/17/11
Wisconsin Right to Life PAC v. Michael Brennan
A federal district court in Wisconsin upheld the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s judicial public financing program. In doing so, the court found no merit to plaintiffs’ claims that the law infringed on the free speech rights of Wisconsin residents and political organizations, or their ability to participate vocally in the state’s judicial elections.
Court Cases
– 06/17/11
In Wisconsin, Judges Are Elected—But Candidates Are Now Publicly Financed
Wisconsin’s 2011 Supreme Court election has been widely criticized, but there are also some silver linings. Most importantly, this election illustrates the importance of Wisconsin’s new judicial public financing system.
Commentary
Authored by: Mark Ladov and Maria da Silva
– 05/06/11
Final Numbers: Special Interest Spending Near $3.6 Million in Wisconsin
A recount looms in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, but one thing is official — special interest groups set a new record, spending just under $3.6 million on television ads in the election, topping the previous record in Wisconsin of $3.38 million set in 2008.
Press Releases
– 04/06/11