Brennan Center for Justice

New Report Highlights Questionable Spending in 2004 Illinois Supreme Court Election
In a recent report for the Center for American Progress, authors Billy Corriher and Brent DeBeaumont highlight allegations that State Farm violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in the 2004 Illinois Supreme Court election by secretly contributing to the campaign of Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier. Prior to the 2004 election, State Farm appealed a case to the Illinois Supreme Court in which they were ordered to pay over $1 billion for breaching a clause in their automobile insurance contract. The case, Avery v. State Farm, remained pending during the 2004 election cycle, during which State Farm and its employees contributed $350,000 to Justice Karmeier’s campaign. After winning the election, Justice Karmeier refused to recuse himself from the case, and in 2005, he joined the majority in overturning the ruling against State Farm.  

In 2009, in light of the Caperton v. Massey ruling, the plaintiffs’ counsel in Avery “launched an investigation to determine whether State Farm’s financial involvement in Justice Karmeier’s 2004 campaign had been fully disclosed. The plaintiffs claim to have uncovered additional evidence that proves that Justice Karmeier’s conflict of interest was just as significant as the conflict of interest in Caperton. As with the donations from Massey Coal, State Farm had a ‘stake in a particular case’ that was ‘pending or imminent’ at the time that it ‘rais[ed] funds or direct[ed] the judge’s election campaign.’” Information uncovered by retired FBI Special Agent Daniel Reece led the plaintiffs to believe that “as much as $4 million given to Justice Karmeier’s campaign came from State Farm or entities strongly influenced by State Farm executives.” The authors note, “This newly unearthed evidence suggests that State Farm deliberately concealed the extent of its financial support for Justice Karmeier’s 2004 campaign by funneling money through a trade association, a political action committee, and a political party—all with the goal of reversing the $1 billion verdict against the company.”
Source: Billy Corriher and Brent DeBeaumont, Dodging a Billion-Dollar Verdict, Center for American Progress, August 2013.

FEDERAL JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

ABA Standing Committee Lacks Diversity
Michael J. Yelnosky, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has completed a study that demonstrates a chronic lack of diversity on the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, reported the Washington Post. At the ABA’s annual meeting earlier this month, six new members were added to the 15-person committee, which has the authority to evaluate nominees for federal judicial vacancies. Of the six new members, “five work for some of the country’s largest law firms and regularly represent some of this country’s biggest corporations. The sixth represents businesses defending against claims for which they have liability insurance — ‘insurance defense’ cases. On the committee, they will join four other lawyers who work at large corporate firms, four who represent businesses in smaller law firms and one who specializes in defending lawyers sued for malpractice. Not one of the lawyers on the committee for 2013-14 regularly represents individuals who bring lawsuits alleging they were harmed by the actions of corporations or other business entities, and not one represents individuals charged with anything other than white-collar crimes.” The ABA has said it chooses committee members from “varied professional experiences and backgrounds,” but Yelnosky found lawyers who represent business interests to be overrepresented on the committee for years. Yelnosky argues the committee’s background will most certainly influence how they rate nominees for federal judicial vacancies, and as such, those nominees deserve to be “evaluated by a broad cross-section of the profession, not only by those who represent a small portion of the population the federal courts exist to serve.”
Sources:  Michael J. Yelnosky, The Bar Association panel should diversify its representation, Washington Post, August 15, 2013; Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How It Works, American Bar Association, 2009.

STATE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

Judicial Nomination Fight Brews in New Jersey
The fight between New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and State Senate Democrats over judicial nominees threatens to impede justice throughout the state, according to a Star-Ledger article. Conflict began in 2010 when Governor Christie refused to renominate Justice John Wallace Jr. “as part of an effort to reshape ‘a liberal activist court.’” That was the first time in New Jersey history that a governor refused to reappoint a sitting justice seeking another term. Senate Democrats have responded to Christie’s actions by delaying the hearings of many of his nominees. “Two of Christie’s nominees for the Supreme Court — Board of Public Utilities President Robert Hanna and Superior Court Judge David Bauman — have been waiting since December for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The governor’s only appointee to the court so far, Justice Anne Patterson, waited more than a year to get a hearing.” Now, instead of renominating sitting Justice Helen Hoens, Christie has decided to end her tenure on the court in an effort to avoid a difficult reconfirmation battle with Senate Democrats. Christie has nominated Faustino Fernandez-Vina in her place.

An editorial in the Herald News argues that these political battles will be detrimental to the administration of justice in New Jersey. “Christie's decision to not renominate Wallace was wrong,” the editorial says, “but not allowing the governor to have his judicial choices on the high court's bench if they are indeed qualified to sit on the bench only proves that two wrongs make for bad government.” Retired Chief Justice Deborah Poritz told the Star-Ledger that New Jersey should do away with its current system of seven-year terms for judges and impose lifetime tenure, which the state Bar Association has agreed to investigate. “It matters little whether Justice Hoens is a so-called conservative justice, or whether Justice Wallace is a centrist,” said Poritz. “What matters is they have both served well in the Supreme Court, worked hard and written scholarly opinions. When they’re not reappointed, the message is, ‘No matter how well you do your work, at seven years this is all up for grabs.’”
Sources: Salvador Rizzo, War between Gov. Christie, Senate threatens justice itself, experts say, Star-Ledger, August 18, 2013; Christie nominees deserve hearings, Herald News, August 16, 2013.

BUDGET

Judges Urge Lawmakers to Avoid Further Budget Cuts
Federal judges in 49 states have sent a letter to lawmakers, urging them to avoid another round of devastating budget cuts that would further damage the functioning of federal courts, according to a Washington Post article. “The unusual letter from the chief judges of trial courts in every state but Nevada says that the $350 million reduction in the judiciary’s lower budget for this year has dramatically slowed court proceedings and jeopardized public safety. The judges say there are fewer probation and other law enforcement officers to deal with record numbers of convicts who have been released from prison or given alternative sentences.” The letter was sent to Vice President Joe Biden as well as top congressional leaders and the members of the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees. At a sequester hearing earlier this year, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy echoed this plea, saying, “Please consider the 0.2 percent of the federal budget for the entire third branch of the federal government is more than reasonable. What’s at stake here is the efficiency of the courts, and they are … not only part of the constitutional structure, they are part of the economic structure of the country.”
Sources: Mark Sherman, Judges urge Congress to avoid more sequestration cuts, Washington Post, August 15, 2013; Tal Kopan, 87 federal judges write Congress on 'devastating' sequester cuts, Politico, August 15, 2013; Tal Kopan, At sequestration hearing, Breyer, Kennedy say cameras in the courtroom too risky, Politico, March 14, 2013.