News & Updates

According to a recent poll, 70 percent of voters favor a proposed constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the authority to require that judges contribute more toward their pensions and benefits. Earlier this year, the state supreme court ruled that judges were exempt from a new law requiring public employees to pay more because it effectively reduced judges’ salaries in violation of the constitution.

Questions were raised as to whether an email from a state employee advocating the retention of the appellate judges on the November ballot violated an anti-electioneering ethics rule. The email was sent by the John Miley, general counsel to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, whose wife is standing for retention to the supreme court.

A recent poll shows that 49 percent of voters plan to vote to retain Justice David Wiggins in November, while 41 percent will vote to remove him. In 2009, Wiggins joined a unanimous supreme court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

With North Carolina's election day looming near, The Charlotte Observer has featured two contrasting opinion pieces, each advocating for the appointment or election of North Carolina judges.

The Iowa Supreme Court finds itself battling to maintain a fair and independent judiciary as a group of Iowans, now backed by the state's Republican party, intensify their campaign for the removal of Justice David Wiggins. In an attempt to keep campaign politics out of Iowa's judicial merit selection system, Justice Wiggins, like his previously ousted colleagues, has refused to launch a retention campaign to fight his removal.

Based on Colorado’s Know Your Judge PSA, the North Carolina Bar Association has released a its own PSA that urges voters to take the initiative to become informed about their judicial candidates before they vote and not to skip the judicial portion of the ballot.

In Sanders County Republican Committee v. Bullock, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Montana law that restricted political parties from endorsing or contributing to judicial campaigns. The Atlantic reports their disfavor with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, maintaining the statute acted to “protect the integrity of [Montana’s] nonpartisan judicial elections” and “stood as a bulwark against the corroding effect of money's influence on judicial integrity.”

NPR recently interviewed IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Kourlis about the impact anti-retention campaigns - such as the one launched against Iowa Justice David Wiggins - has on the judiciary.  Kourlis said efforts by groups to oust judges solely for disagreeable decisions have opened up  a whole new debate over how states select judges.

A group known as the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council released ratings of supreme court justices based on how they have ruled in civil liability cases. Four justices are standing for retention in November.

An analysis of voting in a supreme court primary election suggests “deep racial polarization.” In the race between incumbent justice Steve Gonzalez and a challenger who neither raised money nor campaigned, the challenger won 30 of 39 counties and nearly 40 percent of the statewide vote.

The conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity launched a campaign to highlight the records of the three justices standing for retention in November. The campaign includes television ads criticizing a supreme court ruling that kept an Affordable Care Act-related measure off the 2010 ballot.

The executive board of the state Republican Party voted to oppose the retention of three supreme court justices in November.

Iowans for Freedom announced plans for a statewide “NO Wiggins” bus tour that will oppose judicial activism and the retention of one of the seven justices who in 2009 recognized a right to same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution. The state bar is launching its own weeklong bus tour—the “Yes Iowa Justice Tour.”

Though the state’s judicial elections are nonpartisan in the sense that party affiliation does not appear on the ballot, the state Democratic Party endorsed a state representative who is challenging the sitting chief justice.

A Philadelphia-based Tea Party group vowed to challenge the retention of two supreme court justices on the ballot in 2013 if the state’s voter ID law is not in place for the November elections.

Prior to a campaign recess, the U.S. Senate confirmed two of the 17 pending nominees for federal district court vacancies. Fourteen of the 17 nominees received unanimous approval from the senate judiciary committee.

Over the last year, the percentage of women serving on the state’s courts has risen from 36.1 percent to 38.2 percent. Nationwide, women hold 27.5 percent of state court judgeships.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked a Montana state law barring political party endorsements of judicial candidates.

All 18 judges up for retention in Pima County Superior Court received generally high scores by the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance, with most scoring higher than 85 percent in all categories. Judges in Pima and Maricopa counties (and state appellate judges) must stand for periodic retention by voters.

A circuit court judge rejected a challenge to the ballot summary for a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the governor to name an additional member of the commission that nominates potential appellate judges and increase the required number of nominees from three to four.