News & Updates

This article from the Colorado Lawyer discusses the 2011 conference on evaluating appellate judges and its outcomes. In 2010, a number of states saw organized opposition to the retention of Supreme Court justices. This opposition was motivated…

The November 2011 edition of Selection Snapshots is now available.

There are fourteen trial court seats up for election in Manhattan, but candidates are all running unopposed. The five supreme court candidates were nominated at a party convention. Of the nine civil court candidates, only one faced an opponent in the primary.

According to a report on campaign spending in state supreme court elections in 2009-10, special interest groups accounted for 30% of the money spent and paid for three out of four attack advertisements. The $4.9 million spent on judicial retention elections more than doubled the $2.2 million spent in such races during the entire decade.

Christie campaigned for Republican state legislators, who are up for reelection in November, on the issue of “elitist judges.” Christie plans to propose a constitutional amendment to bypass the ruling.

A joint legislative committee considered changing the process for selecting the state’s appellate judges. The primary proposal is to put party labels for judicial candidates back on the ballot, in order to enhance voter information.

President Obama’s efforts to fill judicial vacancies have been complicated by the American Bar Association’s ratings of potential nominees. The ABA’s judicial vetting committee has rated 14 of 185 potential nominees as “not qualified,” and the administration has a policy of not nominating such candidates.

According to a new report, Michigan had the most expensive judicial races in 2009-10, accounting for one fourth of the $38.4 million spent nationwide. The state also saw the highest spending on TV advertisements and the most attack ads.

Governor Hickenlooper ultimately chose a state trial court judge to fill the seat. The governor reported making his decision on the basis of conversations with sitting justices, diverse legal groups, business groups, and public officials.

“The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-10,” by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, is released as the presidential race is heating up -- with…

Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor's one-minute video on the supreme court's website urging a “yes” vote on Issue 1 in the November election met with some criticism. Issue 1 would raise the retirement age for state judges from 70 to 76.

A state senator proposed a constitutional amendment to alter the way the members of the state’s three appellate courts are selected. The proposal calls for a modified federal selection process, where judges are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the senate for eight year terms, subject to reappointment. The Tennessee Plan is set to expire in 2012, so some type of legislative action must be taken.

Minority groups called for the governor, who will make two supreme court nominations in March, to make the state supreme court more diverse. No justices of color currently serve on the court.

Governor Christie publicly criticized a state trial court judge who ruled that requiring increased contributions to judicial pension plans is an indirect reduction in judges’ pay and in violation of the state constitution. The lawsuit was filed by a judge.

IAALS board member Russell Wheeler was interviewed for this article, which focused on a federal judicial selection process in which President Obama has been slow to nominate and the Senate has been slow to confirm federal judges.

There may be as many as 175 judicial elections—both contested and retention—on the 2012 general election ballot. Two of these races are at the supreme court level, with one justice expected to stand for retention and one justice who was appointed to the bench competing against several challengers to keep her seat.

As Gavel Grab reports, the United States Senate is not only at odds over the federal judicial nominees--it's also at odds over whether the delay in appointments is unreasonable.

A supreme (trial) court administrative judge issued a written reprimand to candidates for four open seats in his district, citing a number of complaints about their campaign activities. The candidates had been provided with a copy of a judicial campaign ethics handbook and required to attend an educational program on the ethical boundaries of campaign conduct.

Supreme court justice Michael Eakin, who is standing for retention in November, has so far raised $427,000 to keep his seat. Even though the race is uncontested, his campaign may be preparing for a last-minute attack. (Pennsylvania judges are first chosen in partisan elections and stand for retention for subsequent terms. Judicial elections are held in off years in conjunction with municipal elections.)

The authors suggest that, though the Supreme Court of the United States has in recent years struck down campaign finance laws, it may be willing to tolerate limits on spending in judicial elections. Click here to read the article.