Selection Snapshots

A Republican legislator called for an investigation into whether three supreme court justices violated state election law in using court employees to help file their retention candidacy paperwork. The justices learned on the day of the deadline that their financial disclosure forms were incomplete and called a court recess to finalize their submissions.

The three supreme court justices standing for retention in November share major campaign contributors with Fair Districts Now, an organization that supported redistricting amendments considered by the court in February.

Republican Allen Loughry, who is running for the supreme court of appeals, is the only one of eight candidates to seek public campaign financing through the state’s pilot program. The public financing program provides $50,000 to uncontested primary candidates, minus what they raised to qualify, and $350,000 for the general election.

A district court judge may have violated the state’s code of judicial conduct by writing a letter soliciting campaign contributions for a fellow judge who is running for a state supreme court seat. If a complaint is filed and found to have merit, the judge could be subject to disciplinary action ranging from admonishment to removal from the bench.

The supreme court adopted new rules that bar individual judges from taking budget requests and suggestions for revisions to the law directly to legislators without first getting appropriate approval. These rules are in response to judges’ role in lobbying lawmakers for a $50 million courthouse that has been labeled “Taj Majal.”

A state senator criticized Governor Christie for not taking action on longstanding superior court vacancies. A shortage of judges recently led to a four-month suspension of civil trials in the state’s busiest courthouse. Christie responded that he will address those vacancies after the senate has voted on pending nominations.

By a 5-4 vote, the state judicial nominating commission voted to bar its members from contributing to or actively participating in any judicial race in the state, including the retention elections of three supreme court justices. Those who voted in favor of the policy want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, while those who voted against it believe that public disclosure of support for a candidate would be sufficient.

The house judiciary committee rejected by a 7-7 vote a proposal calling for all of the state’s judges to be chosen in popular elections. A majority vote was needed for the bill to advance to the full legislature. The measure also failed to get a majority vote in the senate finance committee.

The state legislature approved a new judicial discipline system, calling for replacing the existing disciplinary body—the court on the judiciary—with an entity known as the board of judicial conduct. The ten judge members will be appointed by judicial organizations, rather than by the state bar and the supreme court, and the six non-judge members will be chosen by the governor and the speakers of the house and senate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a lower federal court decision that rejected a challenge to the role of lawyers on the state’s judicial nominating commissions. The lawsuit alleged that it is unconstitutional for the lawyer members to play a part in selecting judges because they are chosen by the state bar association, rather than by voters or an elected official.