Brennan Center for Justice

JUDICIAL VACANCIES

Several Federal Judicial Nominations Move Forward 

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Nina Pillard, one of President Obama’s three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Pillard and Patricia Millet, another nominee, will now face a full Senate vote. No timeline has been set for a committee vote on Robert Wilkins, the third nominee.

The Blog of Legal Times reports that President Obama also recently nominated four candidates to federal district court vacancies in Arizona. The article reported that Republican lawmakers blocked these vacancies from being filled last year, but the president’s recent nominations demonstrate that the Administration and Republican senators have begun to work together. Another Arizona nominee, Rosemary Marquez, had previously been blocked by Senator John McCain and former Senator Jon Kyl, but on Thursday, McCain put his support behind Marquez and the four new nominees.

Information also surfaced last week about a deal between President Obama and U.S. Senators from Georgia to fill federal judicial vacancies in the state. An article in the Daily Report discussed a plan to allow Republican Senators to name three nominees to the Northern District Court in exchange for their support of two nominees to the 11^th Circuit. Georgia’s five Democratic congressional representatives responded to this report with a letter to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, expressing disappointment with the reported deal and requesting a meeting with her in October to discuss their role in the selection process.
Sources: Jessica Karmasek, Senate panel advances Pillard for D.C. Circuit, Legal Newsline Legal Journal, September 19, 2013; Todd Ruger, Obama Makes Another Judicial Nomination Push, Blog of Legal Times, September 20, 2013; Robin McDonald, A Deal on the Table for Federal Judge Appointments?, Daily Report, September 10, 2013; Letter to Kathryn Ruemmler from U.S. Congressmen from Georgia, September 17, 2103.

JUDICIAL SELECTION

Federal Court Denies Request to Halt Superior Court Selection Case

A U.S. District Court has ruled that a lawsuit brought by the citizen watchdog group Common Cause Indiana challenging the process by which Marion Superior Court judges are elected can move forward, according to the Indianapolis Star. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit on behalf of Common Cause, arguing that state law gives too much power to political parties in the judicial selection process. Under Indiana law, a political party may nominate no more than half of the candidates eligible to sit on the Marion Superior Court, so that the Democratic and Republican parties each conduct a primary election in which they select exactly half of the seats to be filled in the at-large general election.  Thus, “because the number of candidates does not exceed the number of available seats, a candidate who wins in May can’t lose in November, unless a third-party candidate runs and wins. This essentially makes voting on Election Day irrelevant, advocates contend.” The Indiana secretary of state, Governor Mike Pence, and members of the Indiana Election Commission filed a motion in federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, but District Court Judge Richard L. Young denied the request earlier this month.
Sources: Tim Evans and John Tuohy, Lawsuit challenging how Marion Superior Court judges are elected can move forward, Indianapolis Star, September 16, 2013; Common Cause Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State, Opinion of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana,  September 6, 2013.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Wisconsin Lawmakers Introduce Second Public Financing Bill

Wisconsin lawmakers recently introduced a second public financing bill in the State Assembly, reports Gavel to Gavel. The bill (AB 353) would create a public financing fund for state offices, including state Supreme Court seats but excluding candidates for court of appeals judgeships, circuit judgeships, and district attorney candidates. Under the bill, candidates can receive two types of grants—a basic grant that can range from “$1,000,000 in the primary and $2,000,000 in the election to $25,000 in the primary and $50,000 in the election, depending on the office sought by the candidate,” and a “matching grant from the clean elections fund for each contribution up to $25 cumulatively that the candidate receives from an individual in an amount equal to three times the amount of the contribution.” Last month, lawmakers introduced another bill (AB 298) that would establish a public financing program for various candidates seeking partisan offices, including Supreme Court, court of appeals, and circuit court races. AB 298 proposed a system where candidates would revive a certain percentage of money from the public financing fund in any given year.
Sources: Bill Raftery, Wisconsin: yet another attempt to resurrect public financing for supreme court campaigns, Gavel to Gavel, September 19, 2013; Assembly Bill 353, Wisconsin Legislative Documents, September 10, 2013; Fair Courts E-lert: Kansas Senate Confirms Court of Appeals Judge, Brennan Center for Justice, September 5, 2013.

RECENT RESEARCH

New Issue of Judicature Highlights Judicial Vacancies

The most recent issue of Judicature, the journal of the American Judicature Society, highlights federal judicial selection during President Obama’s first term in office. The issue’s lead piece offers a detailed account of judicial selection processes, politics, and outcomes, drawing heavily on interviews with process participants in the Senate and White House, as well as interest group leaders. Additional articles offer insight into the president’s Supreme Court appointees, as well as the dysfunctional nature of Senate advice and consent processes. This issue of Judicature is available by subscription with the American Judicature Society.
Source: Judicature Current Issue, American Judicature Society, July/August 2013.