News & Updates

There may be as many as 175 judicial elections—both contested and retention—on the 2012 general election ballot. Two of these races are at the supreme court level, with one justice expected to stand for retention and one justice who was appointed to the bench competing against several challengers to keep her seat.

Intervention in judicial campaigns by special interest groups was an issue in a debate between two superior court candidates. One candidate was prepared to renounce all such activity by third-party groups, while the other candidate preferred to make that decision if questionable activity took place. (The superior court is one of the state’s two intermediate appellate courts.)

As Gavel Grab reports, the United States Senate is not only at odds over the federal judicial nominees--it's also at odds over whether the delay in appointments is unreasonable.

Judge Kevin Burke holds Newt Gingrich's claim that "President Thomas Jefferson abolished over half the federal judgeships" to historical scrutiny.

A local chapter of the League of Women Voters hosted a forum on diversity in state courts as part of a national campaign to promote impartial courts and judicial diversity. The League made several recommendations for enhancing diversity among the state’s judges, most of whom are elected by the legislature after being vetted by a commission composed of legislators and members of the public.

In the wake of the defeat of three justices in the November 2010 retention elections, members of the Iowa Supreme Court have been more active in outreach efforts to educate the public about the role of the courts. One justice will stand for retention in 2012, and a challenge is anticipated.

A supreme (trial) court administrative judge issued a written reprimand to candidates for four open seats in his district, citing a number of complaints about their campaign activities. The candidates had been provided with a copy of a judicial campaign ethics handbook and required to attend an educational program on the ethical boundaries of campaign conduct.

Chief Justice Paul De Muniz announced that he will retire from the supreme court in January 2013. De Muniz’s announcement came well in advance so that prospective candidates for his seat could prepare for the 2012 election.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich promised to “restore the proper role of the judicial branch.” Among his proposals in this regard are ignoring federal court decisions with which he disagrees and subpoenaing federal judges to seek explanations for their decisions.

Supreme court justice Michael Eakin, who is standing for retention in November, has so far raised $427,000 to keep his seat. Even though the race is uncontested, his campaign may be preparing for a last-minute attack. (Pennsylvania judges are first chosen in partisan elections and stand for retention for subsequent terms. Judicial elections are held in off years in conjunction with municipal elections.)

A subcommittee of the judicial branch in Connecticut is reviewing whether the state's evaluation system, which includes surveys to jurors and attorneys, is achieving its goal. The subcommittee is considering ways to revise the existing questionnaire.

The authors suggest that, though the Supreme Court of the United States has in recent years struck down campaign finance laws, it may be willing to tolerate limits on spending in judicial elections. Click here to read the article.

This article recognizes that there is no shortage of debate about the best way to seat judges. Some states, like Tennessee, are considering moving from a judicial appointment system to an election system, while others, like Pennsylvania, are attempting to move their system in the other direction.

Doug Buttrey, executive director of Tennesseans for Economic Growth, lauded Tennessee for enacting civil justice reform but cautioned that its plan to make Tennessee the number one state in job creation and retention can't stop there. He urged Tennessee, which uses commission-based gubernatorial appointment for its Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals, to keep its current system.

This week, Justice at Stake's Gavel Grab featured a guest post by Malia Reddick and Russell Wheeler on the recently released second edition of "Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has named eight judges as new committee chairs and extended the service of three existing chairs for the Judicial Conference of the United States. The committees make policy recommendations to the Conference. Click…

Missouri Bar President John S. Johnston countered a recent Wall Street Journal editorial attack on its merit-based judicial selection system: "Although I usually find your opinion pieces very good, I read with sadness your editorial 'Missouri Compromised.' Your editorial position on the issue of merit selection of judges, often called The Missouri Plan, is simply wrong."

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin declined to open its deliberations to the public. The proposal was made by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who hoped it might restore civility to the process. The Court also tabled a proposal to bring in a workplace consultant to work with the justices on collegiality.

In the wake of allegations that a Pennsylvania state senator improperly helped her sister get elected to the state's high court, the Inquirer calls for merit-based appointment of appellate judges.

Newly elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA) and IAALS board member Judge Kevin Burke has launched a blog on behalf of the AJA.