News & Updates

As IAALS Online has covered previously, Governor Brownback and conservative state legislators are expected to pursue changes to the process for choosing Kansas’ appellate judges in the upcoming legislative session. An unfavorable judicial decision in a school funding case could lend momentum to those efforts.

A contentious and likely expensive supreme court campaign is expected in April 2013, with Justice Patience Roggensack seeking reelection and at least three candidates expressing interest in challenging her. The outcome of the race has the potential to alter the ideological balance on the seven-mamber court, as Justice Roggensack is part of the court’s four-member conservative majority.

In a recent article, the Economist discusses how "money and back-room politicking are contaminating the selection of judges." The relative ease with which partisan groups can reach voters during a contested judicial election cycle has caused an ever-increasing flood of money to pour into judicial elections. As a result, a candidate's financial and political backing now outweighs their actual qualifications in determining who serves on the bench.

Judicial campaign spending amounts across the nation skyrocketed in the recent election cycle, threatening public perceptions of the independence, fairness, and impartiality of the courts. Driven by the desire to tilt the political balance on the court or to remove a judge from the bench because of unpopular rulings, political parties and outside groups spent vast amounts of unregulated money toward retaining or defeating a particular judge.

When they return in January, South Carolina legislators will elect judges for nine new circuit and family court judgeships, providing critics of this selection process with an opportunity to press their case. Their concerns center on the judicial merit selection commission, a ten-member body appointed by legislative leaders—and including six legislators—that screens and recommends judicial candidates.

According to a 1974 amendment to Arizona’s constitution, counties with a population of at least 250,000 must select their superior court judges via commission-based gubernatorial appointment—a.k.a. merit selection—rather than in contested elections. Pinal County exceeded that population threshold in the 2010 census, but the transition to merit selection has not been a smooth one.

The D.C. Bar Judicial Evaluations Committee is beginning its annual survey of attorneys about judges sitting on the D.C. Court of Appeals and D.C. Superior Court. The results of the evaluations are given to the evaluated judge and the chief judge of his/her court.

In the wake of the November elections, the California Supreme Court adopted amendments to the code of judicial ethics that address judicial campaigns. The new rules require appellate judges, who stand for retention every twelve years, to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving parties who have made campaign contributions of at least $5000.

Judicial performance evaluation results published by the new Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) were not seen by many Utah citizens, the JPEC reports. For the first time, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office did not send the voter information pamphlet to all registered voters.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has made history by being the first major federal courthouse in the country to have an all-woman bench. And five of the six judges are women of color.

Several groups have filed a motion requesting that Justice Paul Newby recuse himself from hearing their challenge to the legislature’s redistricting plan because of the campaign support he received from individuals and groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the litigation.

Governor Rick Perry appointed his chief of staff to fill a supreme court vacancy created by Justice Dale Wainwright’s September resignation. Governor Perry has a history of appointing close advisors to top state positions including seats on the high court.

Governor Sam Brownback and his conservative allies have gained substantial majorities in both houses of the Kansas Legislature as a result of the recent general election. With this support, it is predicted that in early 2013 Governor Brownback will propose a constitutional amendment replacing the current merit selection system for the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals with partisan elections along with term limits to create turnover on the benches.

Speaking at the Colorado Judicial Institute’s Tenth Annual Judicial Excellence for Colorado dinner, former Iowa justices Marsha Ternus, David Baker, and Michael Streit stressed the importance to the business and legal communities of maintaining an independent judiciary. According to Justice Ternus, this is a critical factor for businesses in deciding where to locate, as they “want predictability and to know that the courts follow the facts of law, not the whims of special interest groups.”

People for the American Way lauded the work of a federal judicial screening committee established by Senators Udall and Bennet to assist them in recommending to the White House a replacement for a retiring U.S. District Court judge. Upon learning of Chief Judge Wiley Daniel’s plans to take senior status, the senators reactivated the 11-member bipartisan panel they have used for two previous vacancies.

Proponents of replacing Minnesota’s nonpartisan judicial elections with commission-based gubernatorial appointment, retention elections, and performance evaluation were pleased to see Democrats regain a majority in the legislature for 2013, believing that the reform movement lost momentum when Republicans took over in 2010.

In an interview with Parade Magazine, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Honorary Chair of the Advisory Committee to the Quality Judges Initiative, discusses why approval ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court justices have fallen, stressing that the public's broken confidence in the courts is due to misconceptions that the Court should base their decisions on political and personal beliefs rather than on the law.

The defeat of two incumbent supreme court justices has led some to consider making changes to the judicial election process. Neither justices’ qualifications were called into question, and both received higher ratings from the state bar association than did their challengers—one of whom was “not recommended.”

Senate Republicans are split on whether to consider confirmation of judicial nominees, many of which have been pending for several months, during the lame-duck session or wait until the next Congress.

In Bexar County, the recent election has produced another wave of straight-ticket voting on judges. Texas is one of only three states in which voters can cast a straight-party ballot for all candidates, including judicial candidates. This year, Democrats won all but one of the races, but in 2010, a similar partisan sweep resulted in Republicans winning every contested judicial race in Bexar County.