News & Updates

Data collected by the judicial selection commission indicates that interest in applying for a state court judgeship has declined over the years. The most striking example of this is that, while 24 attorneys applied for a supreme court vacancy in 2003, only seven did so in 2011 and only nine applied in 2012.

In 2004, challenger Will T. Scott defeated incumbent justice Janet Stumbo. In 2012, Stumbo is challenging Justice Scott to regain the seat. The judicial campaign conduct committee has labeled ads by both candidates misleading, with at least one ad appearing to be designed to appeal to racial prejudice.

What began two years ago, with a group's successful ousting of three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, has escalated into a movement to rid state courts of justices who have made undesirable rulings. Instead of pushing to remove justices for misconduct or incompetence, groups are doing so because of disagreements over particular decisions.

On November 6th, Arizona citizens will be voting on Proposition 115, which aims to modify Arizona's merit selection system by giving the governor more power over the judicial nomination process. Justice Ruth V. McGregor and Judge James A. Soto warn against this ballot proposition, stating that it will "undermine the present merit-selection system for selecting judges and let politicians control the judicial selection process."

According to the Des Moines Register, experts predict that more than $400,000 will be spent in Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins’ retention election. With so much money injected into what is intended to be an apolitical process, backers of the courts worry that the judicial system will become tied to popular political opinion and that courts and judges may therefore be afraid to decide certain issues for fear of an electoral backlash driven by special interests.

Incumbent justice Robert Cupp asked the state Republican Party to pull an ad describing his election opponent as sympathetic to rapists based on his past opinions as a court of appeals judge.

A website—VoteForJudges.org—is providing Cook County voters with nonpartisan judicial recommendations from area bar groups. Fifty-seven Cook County judges are standing for retention this November.

In the sole supreme court race, a super PAC formed by Republican activists is supporting the challenger. Thirty-nine primarily Democratic lawyers and judges around the state decried the influx of outside money into judicial elections.

Justice Stephen David has opted to actively campaign for his retention, in response to a Tea Party-based challenge based on his vote in a 2011 case. According to David's campaign website, judges "don't have the luxury of taking a poll to find out which way they should rule on thorny issues" but must rule based on the facts and the law.

With less than a month until the November elections, a federal judge struck down the state’s limits on campaign contributions, finding that existing limits prevent candidates from mounting effective campaigns. The case was brought by conservative activists, corporations, and Republican groups.

Challengers to two incumbent supreme court justices questioned their campaign financing practices. One of the challengers promised to recuse himself from cases involving contributors, while the other has raised no money.

According to campaign finance filings, the group formed to support the retention of three justices on the November ballot--Defend Justice from Politics--has raised and spent $1.45 million. The justices themselves have raised $1.36 million.

A pro-business group known as the Montana Growth Network funded a radio ad attacking a supreme court candidate’s position on the death penalty. The candidate asked his opponent to denounce the ad, as the code of judicial conduct recommends when third parties make false statements about candidates, but she responded that she would need to do extensive research to determine the ad’s factuality.

There is speculation that the GOP will return the state to partisan judicial elections if Republicans win control of the legislative and executive branches in November. The legislature made appellate court elections nonpartisan in 2004, but all eight appellate court candidates have clear partisan affiliations.

The judicial performance evaluation commission recommended retention of three appellate judges standing for retention in November, though one judge scored lower than his colleagues on timeliness of rulings and handling his ongoing workload.

For her third appointment to the five-member supreme court, Governor Brewer selected court of appeals judge Ann Scott Timmer, a Republican. Prior to this appointment, thirty-five of the 38 judges she had appointed since taking office in 2009 were Republicans.

Both gubernatorial candidates oppose Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow governors to appoint a majority of the members of the appellate judicial commission and give governors four nominees, rather than three, to choose from in appointing appellate judges.

Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor (Ret.) served on the Arizona Supreme Court from February 1998 until June 30, 2009. She was the Court's Chief Justice from June 2005 until her retirement. As we launch IAALS Online, she joins three other former Chief Justices in the conversation about IAALS and its initiatives. "This election season will give all of us an opportunity to think about how much – or how little – we know about our state supreme court justices. Most of you can name the candidates for President, for Congress, and for your Governor. But do you know how your state supreme court justices are selected and whether any judicial candidates will appear on the November ballot in your state?"

This November, in addition to executive and legislative candidates, Colorado voters will be deciding whether or not to retain Colorado judges. Under Colorado’s system for selecting and retaining judges, all judges who will appear on the ballot must undergo a performance evaluation, the results of which are provided to the public as a tool for casting an informed retention vote. A website—www.knowyourjudge.com—is helping voters locate this information for the judges who will appear on their ballot.

Governor Brownback’s chief counsel is among 21 applicants for a court of appeals vacancy. After screening and interviewing the applicants, the nominating commission will identify three candidates from which the governor must choose.