In a recent press release, The Justice at Stake Campaign (JAS) suggests changing spending patterns may indicate a new phase of judicial election spending. JAS reports campaign spending is expected to fall in states dominated by a single political party, while spending is expected to spike in closely contested states.

Chief Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia warns that the federal judiciary will be at risk if Congress cannot reach a budget deal to prevent the implementation of $600 billion in automatic spending cuts. While civil trials before judges without juries would likely be unaffected, Chief Judge Sentelle states federal civil jury trials would possibly be suspended due to lack of funding to pay jurors and that budget cuts would affect the probation system and payment for public defenders.

In a recent editorial, The New York Times argues the current judicial selection method of electing high state court judges makes the judiciary more susceptible to influence by campaign donors. The New York Times suggests judges should be appointed through merit selection.

This year, Albany Law Review's annual State Constitutional Commentary Symposium features articles from IAALS Advisory Committee Members, including Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, and Meryl Chertoff.

A third of the Middle District of Pennsylvania's active court lies vacant due to the slow-moving process of judicial nominations. These vacancies significantly overburden the district, forcing citizens into long, drawn-out litigation. Rebecca Love Kourlis, Executive Director of IAALS, was interviewed about the situation.

The Diane Rehm Show discusses how judicial elections and appointment processes impact fairness in state courts. Some critics argue elections create political biases which weaken judicial impartiality. Others argue elections provide a way for the people to hold judges accountable and that the key to keeping courts fair and impartial is by educating the public.

At its fall convention, the state Democratic Party nominated three women to run for supreme court seats in November. Two of the three candidates are challenging incumbent justices, while the third is running for an open seat.

The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona has prepared a short video that describes its process for selecting, evaluating, and retaining judges. Appellate courts and trial courts in the three largest counties use the O'Connor Judicial Selection Plan, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is featured in the video.

On August 30th, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania introduced a new Pilot Program designed to expedite civil cases filed in that district. Modeled loosely on the Northern District of California's program, the Pennsylvania District's Pilot Program is aimed at relatively simple civil cases, which do not require lengthy and expensive pretrial and trial proceedings.

Thirty-three percent of supreme, appellate, and superior court judges are women—an increase of eight percent since 2002. This figure comes close to matching the percentage of Connecticut Bar Association members who are women—34 percent.

A group of retired supreme court judges took the lead in the campaign opposing Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the governor to name an additional member of the commission that nominates potential judges and increase the number of nominees from three to four.

The state Republican Party chair called for voters to remove one of four supreme court justices standing for retention in November. Justice David Wiggins participated in the 2009 unanimous ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state, and three of his colleagues lost their bids for retention in 2010.