News & Updates

A group of retired supreme court judges took the lead in the campaign opposing Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the governor to name an additional member of the commission that nominates potential judges and increase the number of nominees from three to four.

The state Republican Party chair called for voters to remove one of four supreme court justices standing for retention in November. Justice David Wiggins participated in the 2009 unanimous ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state, and three of his colleagues lost their bids for retention in 2010.

With Justice Patricio Serna’s retirement at the end of August, the state political parties are meeting to nominate candidates to run for the seat in November. Ordinarily, nominees would be chosen in partisan primary elections, but the vacancy is occurring after the June primaries.

The Missouri Bar’s judicial-review committee has released evaluations of the 51 judges standing for retention in November, recommending against the retention of Judge Dale W. Hood. Judge Hood also received a “not be retained” recommendation in 2008 but was retained by 54 percent of the vote.

Some senators are pushing to abolish the governor’s council, one of the chief responsibilities of which is to confirm judicial appointments. The council has come under fire recently for “unorthodox questioning” of judicial nominees and “inflammatory behavior” of some members.

With two vacancies on the supreme court, Chief Justice Rabner is assigning two intermediate appellate court judges to the supreme court as of October 1. The court has been operating with six members since Justice Long retired in March, and a lower court judge who has been serving temporarily reaches mandatory retirement age next month.

Twenty-three past presidents of the Florida Bar signed a resolution denouncing the effort by Restore Justice 2012 to oust three supreme court justices standing for retention in November. The bar also released a poll of attorneys showing strong support for retaining the justices, whose average approval rating was 90 percent, and the 15 court of appeals judges on the ballot.

In a unanimous ruling, the supreme court of appeals declared unconstitutional the matching or “rescue” funds provision of the state’s pilot public financing program. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the matching funds provision of Arizona’s public financing program for legislative and executive campaigns.

Three former judges recused themselves from hearing a challenge to the state’s appellate judge selection process, citing the need to preserve the integrity of the special five-member panel appointed by Governor Haslam to decide the case.

In the dispute over who should replace Kitty Kimball as chief justice when she steps down in early 2013, a federal district court judge ruled that Justice Bernice Johnson’s service from 1994 to 2000 as part of a civil rights case settlement should count toward her seniority. Attorneys for the state had argued that the issue should be decided by the state supreme court, and they have appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The legislature’s creation of two additional judgeships and several retirements are creating a record number of superior court vacancies to be filled. If Governor Markell is reelected in November, he will have a rare opportunity to shape the superior court.

According to financial disclosure forms, five of the seven justices serving on the supreme court in 2011 accepted travel or hospitality that was often provided by attorney associations whose members might appear before the court. Some legal scholars question the propriety of such arrangements.

The Akron Bar Association formed a judicial campaign conduct committee as part of an effort to improve the tone and conduct of local judicial campaigns. The committee will ask candidates to sign a clean-campaign pledge and will review complaints about improper campaign behavior. The committee consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and an independent and includes eight lawyers and three non-lawyers.

While the state bar association supports Proposition 115, which goes before voters in November, other members of the legal community oppose its passage. Among other changes, the measure would increase the number of nominees from which the governor makes judicial appointments and give the governor greater control over the membership of the commission that makes the nominations.

The three justices standing for retention in November embarked on a tour of news organizations around the state in an effort to better inform voters about the merit selection and retention process for appellate judges. The justices have raised nearly $975,000 to support their retention.

An incumbent justice seeking reelection denied violating canons of judicial ethics in response to a charge by his opponent that he accepted a campaign contribution from a party whose case he heard. Republican Justice Robert Cupp said that he does not monitor who his contributors are and his campaign committee does not monitor his docket.

The Democratic candidate for chief justice was removed as his party’s nominee for reportedly making “disparaging remarks about homosexuals, his Republican opponent and party leaders.” Following a hearing, a five-member party committee voted unanimously to take this step and reopened the qualifying period for candidates.

Although the senate judiciary committee voted not to recommend her confirmation to the full senate, the senate confirmed Su J. Chon’s appointment as a district court judge by a 17-10 margin.

Of the 14 applicants for a supreme court vacancy, the judicial nominating commission voted to interview nine, including three Democrats. This was the most Democrats to make it to the interview stage and could have provided the largest number of nominees from which to choose of three vacancies that Governor Brewer has filled.

A study of the sentencing practices of superior court judges suggests that their elections influence their behavior, with judges handing out stiffer sentences from the time they take the bench to their first election.