The 9th Circuit upheld Arizona’s judicial conduct rules limiting political activity by sitting judges and judicial candidates. It's the first major decision on regulating judicial campaign conduct since the Supreme Court upheld a narrower law.
A 2014 law stripping power from the high court is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, the court ruled, setting up a showdown over a separate law on funding for the judiciary in Kansas.
These spending patterns suggest certain groups, such as plaintiff’s attorneys and unions, sought to influence the outcome of this election. Of even greater concern are the groups who don't disclose their donors.
Even as spending figures continue to roll in, Pennsylvania's superheated Supreme Court race has broken a national record. More troubling is this unacceptable level of politicization is now the norm, not the exception, for judicial races.
Offering a detailed analysis of the latest state Supreme Court campaign trends, this study shows how special-interest spending has impacted state courts nationwide — and how this spending may affect courtroom decisions.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court election has already set records for candidate fundraising, overall spending, and total television airtime spending, with a week remaining before voters fill three open seats on the court.