News & Updates

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Denver Bar Association's October edition of The Docket features a brief history of the American legal education system and mentions current efforts of Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers "to advance legal education and raise standards of competence and professionalism."

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.

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.”

Professor Mary Lynch of Albany Law School recently reviewed IAALS’ three-day Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers (ETL) Conference on her Best Practices for Legal Education blog. She wrote that the "energy, ideas and information being shared and built upon at the . . . Conference [gave her] hope and optimism about the way out of the 'crisis' in legal education."

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.

We all were there with the same objective: to achieve increased access, trust, and confidence in the courts though significant reduction in costs and delay in civil cases. We explored various efforts currently underway in state and federal courts: pilot projects, rules amendments, expedited trials, and changes in case management. We drew from these projects the requirements essential to civil justice reform. And we agreed on a protocol to spread the word and implement the message.

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.

Dan Ritchie, IAALS board member and founder and former University of Denver chancellor, is often credited with bringing DU to the national stage of academia. And, as noted by the Denver Post, he can be credited further as laying the foundation for the university to host the first 2012 presidential debate.

IAALS was very sad to learn that U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz passed away on Sunday, September 30, after battling Lou Gehrig's disease for over a year. Judge Kravitz leaves a legacy of commitment to the civil justice system and service to the court and public.

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.

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