Brennan Center for Justice

JUDICIAL SELECTION

Former Iowa Supreme Court Justice Touts Merit Selection
At a forum last Tuesday, former Iowa Supreme Court Justice Marsha Ternus expressed her support for the state’s judicial retention process, despite the fact that she was ousted in a 2010 retention election, reports the Des Moines Register. After voting to strike down Iowa’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples, Ternus and two of her colleagues were targeted by conservative interest groups and voted out of office in the 2010 election. In 2012, a similar campaign to oust Justice David Wiggins was unsuccessful. At the Fair Courts Forum sponsored by One Iowa, an LGBT rights organization, Ternus argued that merit selection is “the best way to make sure that we have a competent judiciary and one that will adhere to the rule of law.” She added, “I think what’s more significant is what we talked about today going forward and to make sure that we protect the merit selection that we have of judges here in Iowa.”
Source: Grant Rodgers, Despite ouster, Ternus favors retention system, Des Moines Register, August 20, 2013.

BUDGET

Eric Holder Speaks Out Against Budget Cuts
In an op-ed in the Washington Post last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder emphasized the crushing effects of the sequester on our nation’s already under-resourced federal and public defender systems. While federal public defender programs have often served as “model[s] for efficiency and success,” Holder notes that “draconian cuts have forced layoffs, furloughs (averaging 15 days per staff member) and personnel reductions through attrition. Across the country, these cuts threaten the integrity of our criminal justice system and impede the ability of our dedicated professionals to ensure due process, provide fair outcomes and guarantee the constitutionally protected rights of every criminal defendant.”

Holder also trumpeted the Justice Department’s commitment to supporting indigent defense, “filing a statement of interest in the case of Wilbur v. City of Mt. Vernon, asserting that the federal government has a strong interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions are fulfilling their obligations under Gideon and endorsing limits on the caseloads of public defenders so they can provide quality representation to each client.”
Sources: Eric Holder, Jr., Defendants’ legal rights undermined by budget cuts, Washington Post, August 22, 2013; Ann E. Marimow and Keith L. Alexander, Sequester’s furloughs worry federal judges, public defenders, Washington Post, April 2, 2013; Statement of Interest of the United States, Wilbur v. City of Mt. Vernon, August 14, 2013; Wilbur v. City of Mt. Vernon resource page, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State; Gideon v. Wainwright resource page, United States Courts.

INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

Money in Michigan Judicial Politics
In a recent interview with Bridge Magazine, Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, discussed the role of money in judicial politics. Robinson commented on Court of Appeals Judge Henry Saad, who donated $80,800 to Republican candidates and parties in the 2012 federal elections. While Robinson acknowledged  Judge Saad’s “First Amendment rights to support the candidates and party committees he chooses to support,” he argued that “[h]aving contributed more than half his net judicial salary — an amount greater than average household income in Michigan — to various Republican party committees, I’d say he’s flushed any vestiges of nonpartisanship. It is highly unusual conduct for a judge, in Michigan or anywhere else in the country.” Robinson notes, “It’s not that unusual to see a judicial candidate give their campaign committee tens of thousands of dollars, and almost every election cycle there’s at least one candidate who gives six figures to his or her own campaign. But I have never seen a Michigan judge give thousands of dollars to another candidate or a party committee.”

Robinson went on to say that one of the things he is most concerned about is “the increasing role of dark money. In the 2012 Supreme Court campaign the candidates and independent spenders reported $5 million of spending. I was able to document nearly $14 million more in spending for television ‘issue’ ads… and I’m certain there was more spending that I couldn’t document…” He argues, “We’re fools to allow three-fourths of the money in a judicial campaign to come from anonymous sources. If we had full disclosure, you might see more recusal motions, or you might see a certain amount of pulling back by the cowards who spend millions under the cover of anonymity.”
Source: David Ashenfelter, Why Michigan citizens should care about money in judicial politics, Bridge Magazine, August 19, 2013.

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

North Carolina Judicial Discipline Bill Signed into Law
Last week, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed into law a bill limiting the public disclosure of information regarding cases of judicial misconduct, according to the Associated Press. The bill takes away the authority of the Judicial Standards Commission to publicly reprimand judges without approval of the Supreme Court. It also makes all disciplinary hearings and records private, although the Supreme Court may agree to disclose them. Finally, it gives the Supreme Court the ability to discipline its own members. The North Carolina Bar Association spoke out against this law and urged Governor McCrory not to sign it, the first time in history the Bar Association had made this plea. “While McCrory told the AP he'd like to see public disclosure provisions revisited next spring by the legislature, he said he signed the bill because ‘the potential for political abuse for a frivolous complaint toward a judge’ under the previous system was very high. The bill passed both chambers even after it was initially rejected by the Senate.”
Sources: Gary D. Robertson, NC governor clears out remaining pending bills, Associated Press via Merced Sun-Star, August 23, 2013; Submitted by cjarvis, NC Bar Association asks governor to veto judicial discipline secrecy bill, News and Observer, August 6, 2013; Brennan Center for Justice, Fair Courts E-lert: The Expanding Role of the United States Chief Justice, August 14, 2013.