News & Updates

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently published an article about proposed legislation to change the Pennsylvania judicial selection process. IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis was interviewed in the article about the proposed legislation and the benefits of merit selection. She noted that the Pennsylvania proposal contains the front-end nominating commission process endorsed by IAALS as the O'Connor Judicial Selection Plan.

The U.S. Senate voted 52 to 48 to change its rules regarding use of the filibuster to block votes on nominees to the lower federal courts and executive branch positions. The immediate impact of this development will be to allow votes on three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit whose appointments Republicans have blocked. Writing for CNN.com, IAALS Board of Advisors member Russell Wheeler suggested that the three will be confirmed "but at a cost."

In a recent opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari in an Alabama death penalty case, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the pressures of partisan judicial elections influence judges' decisions in cases involving hot-button issues like capital punishment. Social scientists have examined the question before, and have come to similar conclusions.

O'Connor Advisory Committee member and former Texas chief justice Wallace Jefferson recently appeared on MSNBC's Craig Melvin show. That segment of the program focused on the findings of the latest New Politics of Judicial Elections report. In his remarks, Jefferson acknowledged the value of judicial accountability but suggested that voters do not have enough information about judges and judicial candidates to cast votes based on merit.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill calling for a move to merit selection for judges of Pennsylvania's appellate courts. The proposed constitutional amendment would replace partisan elections with a commission-based gubernatorial appointment and senate confirmation process. And, the time may be right for selection reform in the state, according to a recent survey.

Pennsylvania is one of at least four states that holds judicial elections in off-years. This November, two candidates competed for a seat on the superior court (an intermediate appellate court) and four appellate judges, including two supreme court justices, stood for retention. Additionally, in New York, voters considered a proposed constitutional amendment that would have raised the mandatory retirement age for judges on the state's highest court and major trials courts.

Appellate judges in 38 states stand for election. But how much do we know about them? Are they fair? Do they write opinions that parties can understand? Are they doing a good job? With only a fraction of states providing such information about appellate judges, very few voters have what they need to make an informed and responsible decision at the ballot box. We at IAALS are working to change that with our newest publication.

IAALS is thrilled by the news that Judge Russell Carparelli of the Colorado Court of Appeals will take the helm at the American Judicature Society (AJS) as of January 1, 2014. IAALS has partnered with AJS on a handful of projects and we look forward to strengthening our collaborative relationship under his leadership. And Judge Carparelli is also a friend of IAALS in both the professional and personal sense, engaged actively in our Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers and Quality Judges Initiatives.

According to a new poll, nearly nine in ten voters believe that judicial campaign support—whether in the form of direct contributions or independent spending—influences judicial decisions. This figure is a sharp increase from similar polls conducted over the last decade. These heightened concerns could be a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United or to a marked rise in judicial election spending, particularly by outside groups, in recent years.

Florida has a commission-based judicial appointment process wherein the governor appoints all members of the nominating commissions, with some of the governor's appointees come from candidate lists submitted by the Florida Bar. According to a new report, Governor Rick Scott often rejects the bar lists and requests additional names, unlike his predecessors Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush, who always accepted the bar's recommendations. And, the pace of these rejections is expected to rise.

According to a new analysis, justices on Wisconsin's high court tend to favor parties whose attorneys contributed to their election campaigns. With respect to campaign donations made prior to rulings, justices included in the study ruled in favor of donors 59 percent at the time. This does not establish that campaign support actually influenced decisions, but fair courts advocates worry that the public perceives this to be the case.

Over the summer, the Tennessee legislature declined to renew the state's judicial nominating commission, which was used to recommend well-qualified candidates for appellate judgeships to the governor. Instead, lawmakers chose to let Tennesseans weigh in on the issue in 2014. The judicial selection process appeared to be in limbo in the interim, but Republican Governor Bill Haslam has acted to fill the gap, creating a screening panel by executive order.

As Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts celebrates its 25th year, supporters of moving from partisan elections to commission-based appointment of the state's appellate judges are optimistic that the time is finally right. That optimism stems largely from two recent scandals that have plagued the state supreme court. The reform legislation also enjoys support on both sides of the aisle.

Judge Kevin Burke, Minnesota District Court Judge and member of the IAALS Board of Advisors, has written about the ideas and lessons of Roscoe Pound, former Dean of Harvard Law School from 1916-1936, and what the legal community today can learn from his legacy. For example, Pound discussed a major misperception on the part of the public—the idea that the administration of justice comes easy to those in charge.

Thanks to a working group of judges and lawyers, California's Administrative Office of the Courts now offers a required course on judicial ethics for incumbent judges and attorney challengers running for judicial office. Judicial candidates must complete the course within 60 days of filing for office, creating a campaign committee, or receiving a campaign contribution.

Recent efforts to alter the process for selecting Kansas' appellate judges have been covered frequently of late. Supporters of increased funding for public schools are concerned about the impact this effort may have on a school finance case that is currently before the supreme court. Specifically, they worry that Governor Brownback and conservative legislators may be pushing selection changes to "put the court on notice."

At a recent public forum, Ohio's three newest supreme court justices discussed the threat posed to state courts by significant turnover on the bench. Over the next six years, four of the high court's seven justices—along with approximately 100 judges statewide—will reach retirement age. Justice Sharon Kennedy acknowledged that change of this magnitude could lead to questions about the stability of state laws and their application.

Opponents of commission-based appointment of judges—also known as the Missouri Plan, for the state in which the judicial selection process originated—have obtained approval from the secretary of state for two identically worded proposed constitutional amendments that would establish contested elections for Missouri's appellate judges.

Two retired judges will co-chair a new task force on judicial independence established by the New Jersey Bar Association. The task force will direct its efforts at "current threats to weaken our judiciary." There is longstanding tension between Governor Chris Christie and the legislature when it comes to making judicial appointments, particularly to the state's high court. There is also longstanding tension between the governor and the supreme court, with Christie promising to remake the court after unfavorable rulings.

In 2012, North Carolina was the only state with contested judicial elections in which voters were provided with performance evaluations of the judicial candidates—both sitting judges and challengers—on their ballot. It is fairly common for bar associations to offer ratings of sitting judges standing for retention or reelection, but this was the first instance of which IAALS is aware where a bar association also evaluated judicial challengers. Since 2012, the NCBA has also offered a voluntary, confidential evaluation program for new judges.