News & Updates

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.

The state chamber plans to publicize its recently completed ratings of supreme court justices standing for retention, based on their rulings in business cases.

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.

Recent polling indicates that the chief justice race between Judge Robert Vance Jr. and Roy Moore is a dead heat, a somewhat surprising turn of events given that Vance did not enter the race as the Democratic candidate until September. Since then, Vance has raised $500,000 and received endorsements from two prominent Alabama Republicans.

Following public interviews of 18 applicants and private deliberations, the appellate judicial commission selected three nominees for possible appointment to the supreme court vacancy created by Justice Ray Price’s retirement. Three interviewees were women and one was a minority, with six from outside metropolitan areas. Governor Nixon must make the appointment within 60 days.

Supporters of Amendment 3, which would alter the composition of the appellate judicial commission and require the commission to identify 4 (rather then 3) nominees for each vacancy, announced that they will not campaign for the amendment’s passage.

A radio ad funded by the American Justice Partnership highlights “eyebrow-raising” real estate transactions by a sitting justice who is not running for reelection, and a mailing from the Michigan Republican Party suggests that the Democratic supreme court candidates do not care about the potential mortgage fraud.

Governor Cuomo’s first appointments to the state’s appellate courts reflect an emphasis on diversity. Of the seven appointments, one judge is Asian, two are black, and one is openly gay. There is diversity in their professional backgrounds as well. The governor appoints judges to the appellate division from nominees submitted by a screening panel.

Critics of Justice Stephen David’s majority opinion in a 2011 Fourth Amendment case are challenging his bid for retention. The decision rejected the “Your home is your castle” doctrine as a defense to violent acts against law enforcement personnel. Justice Robert Rucker is also standing for retention, but he dissented in the case.

A grassroots organization known as Citizens for Judicial Integrity is campaigning against the retention of four Madison County judges. According to the CFJI website, the judges were elected with "huge contributions from judges and asbestos law firms" and are "responsible for a lawsuit explosion.”

This fall, judges are running in contestable elections in 32 states and standing in yes/no retention elections in 17 states. Judicial elections are typically low-information contests, where voters may cast their ballots based on party affiliation, name recognition, or ballot position rather than on qualifications and experience. But in a handful of states, voters will have the benefit of broad-based and objective evaluations of incumbent judges’ performance on the bench and, in one state, of the judicial potential of their challengers.

The state bar association launched a website to give voters more information about appellate judges standing for retention. The site explains the merit selection and retention system, provides bios and photos of judges on the ballot, and includes links to judges’ decisions. It was created in response to the judicial ratings issued by the state chamber-backed Oklahoma Civil Justice Council, based on judges’ rulings in civil liability cases.

All eight candidates for the state’s appellate courts qualified for public financing, with supreme court candidates receiving $240,100 each and court of appeals candidates receiving $164,400. At least two outside groups are raising and spending funds in support of the Republican supreme court candidate.