News & Updates

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.

Following the defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have given the governor greater authority in appointing nominating commission members and more discretion in selecting judges, supporters of the measure vowed to "regroup and move forward with something more aggressive" for 2014.

Two supreme court candidates who face a December runoff have taken different tacks in their campaigns. While one candidate has discussed his position as "pro-life, pro-gun and pro-traditional marriage" and a supporter of the death penalty, the other has not publicly shared his views because he does not want to risk having to recuse himself from hearing cases involving controversial issues in the future.

This special edition of Selection Snapshots provides an overview of the challenges to judicial retention, court-related ballot measures, supreme court elections, public financing of judicial campaigns, and judicial campaign oversight committees.

On Bill Moyer's show, Sally Pederson and Joy Corning, co-founders of a bipartisan coalition called Justice Not Politics, discuss the risks to the judicial system when "justices are at the mercy of partisan passions and money in politics." Justice Not Politics successfully campaigned against conservative groups in Iowa that were working to oust a justice involved in a 2009 unanimous decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

LawWeek Colorado recently interviewed Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis about IAALS' efforts to build public confidence and trust for judges and the court system. Referencing a recent publication of the Quality Judges Initiative, "Cornerstones of State Judicial Selection," Kourlis asserts that constituents expect judges to be honest, fair, and faithful to the rule of law and for courts to be impartial, accountable, and transparent. To achieve these principles, Kourlis says that citizens need to think critically about whether the current judicial retention system is delivering what they want out of judges and the courts.

While the last decade has seen a sort of "nationalization" of state high court races, coverage of election night results remains below that of congressional races. In 2010, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) attempted, thanks to advancements in reporting from the various secretaries of state as well as social media, to offer up election night coverage via Twitter (@StateCourts) and with a website dedicated to compiling the results. Coverage will be back again in 2012.

Addressing efforts to oust Justice David Wiggins from his seat on Iowa's high court because of an unpopular decision, the O’Connor Advisory Committee Chair, Justice Ruth V. McGregor, has written an op-ed about how special interest groups are "asking Iowa’s voters to disregard the fundamental principles of a state justice system that has served Iowa well."

An ad sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Crisis Network criticizes a supreme court candidate for volunteering to provide free legal representation to individuals suspected of terrorism. Spending on the ad is expected to top $1 million.

The ACLU of Indiana filed a constitutional challenge to the process for electing superior court judges in Marion County. Under a system that may be unique, voters in each of the major party primaries cast ballots for half of the judicial seats to be filled. This ensures partisan balance on the bench, but it also makes the general election a mere formality.

Four justices who served with former chief justice Roy Moore are among 10 current and former justices of both parties who have endorsed his opponent in Moore’s bid to be chief justice again. He was removed from the court in 2003 for ignoring a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state judicial building.

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.

Responding to the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council’s rating of justices standing for retention based on their decisions in civil liability cases, a group known as “Yes for Fair and Impartial Judges” mounted an educational campaign to encourage voters to consider the justices’ integrity, fairness, and impartiality.

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.

Justice John Pelander has taken the unusual step of forming a campaign committee to support his retention, in the face of opposition from conservative groups based on a recent decision.

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.