State Judicial Elections
Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges, and the vast majority of cases in the United States are heard by elective courts. To safeguard the rights of parties appearing before these courts, the Brennan Center works to reduce the influence of money on judicial elections. We support public financing of campaigns for the bench, reasonable limits on contributions to candidates and others engaged in electioneering, and full disclosure of campaign fundraising and spending. To protect judicial independence, we challenged a New York law that effectively undermined constitutionally required trial court elections by giving political party leaders control over selection of judges.
Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign. Did Benjamin’s failure to recuse violate the Due Process Clause?
The Brennan Center is intervening to help defend the nation’s first voluntary full public financing program for judicial elections.
Lopez Torres v. NYS Board of Elections
U.S. Judge Overturns New York State Judicial Election Process in Brennan Center Lawsuit
Vanishing Recusal Prospects in Wisconsin
“I’m just dumbfounded,” stammered Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. This was Thursday, January 21, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated ruling in Citizens United, which easily eclipsed the unfolding drama in Wisconsin. Justice Bradley’s words were in response to the state court’s anguished position on the recusal of high court judges, a position that’s brought only disappointment since October 2009.
Is it a constitutional problem if a judge presides over the case of a corporate CEO who spent three million dollars to elect the judge in question? The Supreme Court faced just this question last term…Now, less than a year later, the Supreme Court is poised to open the floodgates to a volume of corporate spending in judicial elections that could make three million dollars look like a drop in the bucket.
With Justice Elizabeth Weaver leading the charge, the Michigan Supreme Court is poised to codify new standards for how and when judges must recuse themselves. As it stands now in Michigan, when a party to a case files a motion requesting that a judge disqualify himself due to aconflict of interest, that very judge can deny the motion (refusing to recuse himself) without having to explain why.
Illustrations by Risko
Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Caperton v. Massey
Major victory for the Rule of Law and Due Process with Supreme Court’s 5–4 vote.
Jurists, Business Leaders, Reform Groups Join “Justice for Sale” Case
High Court urged to require West Virginia judge’s recusal in suit involving campaign support.
Letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Regarding its Proposed Revisions to Recusal Petitions
On January 21, 2010, Brennan Center counsel Adam Skaggs, along with Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg, submitted a letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court urging it to reject recently proposed revisions to the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
Testimony of Adam Skaggs to House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
Adam Skaggs submits written testimony to the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy regarding the state of judicial recusals after Caperton v. A.T. Massey
Brennan Center and Justice at Stake Joint Letter to Michigan Supreme Court
The letter offers comments on the three proposals concerning judicial disqualification currently under consideration by the Michigan Supreme Court.
2009-2010 State Judicial Reform Efforts
State Judicial Reform After Caperton v. Massey
Selected Press and Commentary on Caperton v. Massey
Stories covering the West Virginia case.