Brennan Center for Justice

                Leading up to the November 2012 general election, the Brennan Center for Justice will release real-time reports on television advertising in state supreme court elections.  The Brennan Center's “Buying Time — 2012” will feature every judicial election television advertisement aired in states holding elections for supreme court in 2012 and will provide summaries of the amounts spent on TV ads in different states—and breakdowns of which groups are doing the spending.  The 2012 reporting continues the analysis first conducted in 2000, examining the sponsorship, content and costs of televised state Supreme Court campaign ads.

Click here for access to The New Politics of Judicial Elections reports, published bi-annually by the Brennan Center, Justice at Stake and the Institute on Money in State Politics, to document the growing threats to fair and impartial courts from big money, special interest pressure, and television air wars.

Click here for access to state-by-state coverage of judicial election advertising in 2012.

State Judicial Selection

1.            Alabama’s judicial primary is fast approaching: on March 13, Chief Justice Chuck Malone will face former Chief Justice Roy Moore and former Attorney General Charles Graddick.  The state is no stranger to expensive judicial election campaigns—according to the New Politics of Judicial Elections: Decade of Change, candidates for Alabama’s supreme court raised $40.9 million from 2000-2009, more than double what was raised in the next most expensive state.  As a Press Register blog post notes, in 2006 incumbent Drayton Nabers spent more than $2 million on the primary alone, a figure greater than the total spent by the three current candidates so far.  And while this year’s race for Chief Justice has not attracted the high levels of spending seen in previous years, a Dothan Eagle editorial notes the pitfalls inherent in judicial elections: although “the bench is not like a political seat” judges nonetheless “must cast aside objectivity to identify themselves as Democrat or Republican” for the purpose of an election.

Brendan Kirby, Alabama Supreme Court Candidates Find Campaign Contributions Harder to Come by, Press-Register, February 26, 2012; Editorial: Judging Judges, Dothan Eagle, March 1, 2012.

2.            The Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee is considering two bills that would establish a merit-selection system to fill vacancies on the state’s appellate courts.  According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article about the legislative action, the ongoing controversy surrounding Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin’s judicial campaign—Melvin’s sister, Jane Orie, is standing trial on allegations that she used her own staff to campaign for her sister’s 2009 race—is “just one example to showcase how expensive and messy campaign fundraising can get for a position many would say should be above dollar influences.”  A Philadelphia Daily News editorial similarly expresses support for a switch from contested elections to merit selection, calling Justice Joan Orie Melvin a “poster child” for merit selection.

Julie Shaw, Supreme Spending Highlights Pa. Judicial-Selection Issue, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 1, 2012; DN Editorial: The Dangers of Fundraising Judges, Philadelphia Daily News, March 2, 2012.

Federal Judicial Selection

3.            According to POLITICO, the federal judicial nominations process may become the next culture war in the U.S. Senate.  The article notes that while negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans are underway to resolve the backlog of judicial confirmations, Democrats—led by Majority Leader Harry Reid—have made it clear that the slow pace of confirmation of President Obama’s judicial nominees is an issue they will not shy away from.

Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Judicial Gridlock may be Round 2 in Culture War, POLITICO, March 1, 2012.

Diversity on the Bench

4.            After a report from the Judicial Council of California highlighted the lack of diversity on the state’s bench—three-quarters of the state’s judges are white and two-thirds are male—Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye discussed the issue in an interview with KQED News, expressing her hope that the increasing diversity of law school graduates “will translate into membership in the bar, and eventually into representation on the bench.”  Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye described the diversity of the bench as crucial to increasing public trust and confidence in the courts.

Jon Brooks, Interview: Calif. Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye on Why Judiciary Is Overwhelmingly White, Male; KQED News, March 1, 2012.

5.            California recently enacted the Judicial Applicant and Appointment Demographics Inclusion Act.  Among other things, the Act, which took effect January 1, requires the state to now ask judges to declare their sexual orientation.  Speaking in a Washington Times article about the Administrative Office of the Courts’ first survey on gay judges, which was released last Thursday, Equality California spokeswoman and supporter of the Act, Rebekah Orr  noted that while judges are not required to answer, the information will hopefully lead to a more comprehensive picture of the courts’ diversity.  However, according to an article in The Recorder, some judges have expressed concern that the questions “go too far,” and forty percent of judges refused to state their sexual orientation.

Valerie Richardson,California Judges Asked to Say if They are Gay, The Washington Times, March 1, 2012; Cheryl Miller, Sexual Orientation Question Not a Hit With State's Judges, The Recorder, March 1, 2012.

Judicial Discipline

6.            An email sent last week by Chief Justice Richard Cebull of the U.S. District Court in Montana has resulted in numerous groups calling for his resignation.  The judge himself requested the Judicial Council investigate whether his conduct—sending an email about President Barack Obama that he acknowledges was racist, but which he contends was sent for political, not racial, reasons—constituted professional misconduct.  According to the Great Falls Tribune, Chief Justice Cebull’s e-mail contained the following joke: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”  Although Justice Ceball sent letter of apology to President Obama, many groups believe the email throws doubt on his ability to maintain impartiality on the bench.

Amanda Bronstad, Federal Judge Files Complaint over his own E-Mail Message, National Law Journal, March 1, 2012; John S. Adams, Chief U.S. District Judge Sends Racially Charged Email About President, Great Falls Tribune, February 29, 2012; Bob Edgar, Montana's Senior Federal Judge Crosses the Line, Huffington Post, March 1, 2012.

Miscellaneous

7.            A Massachusetts Court System press release last Friday announced that the Supreme Court has approved a new rule governing electronic court access.  According to the release, the rule, effective July 1, 2012, will expand media access to court proceedings.

Supreme Judicial Court Approves New Rule 1:19 Governing Electronic Access to the Courts, Massachusetts Court System, March 2, 2012.