November, 03 2010, 10:44am EDT
2010 Judicial Elections Increase Pressure on Courts, Reform Groups Say
WASHINGTON
Election Day 2010 brought a new
round of special interest money, nasty ads and wedge issue politics into
America's courtrooms, breaking several spending records and spreading
costly, ideological hardball campaigns into new states.The roar of this
year's national politics-which favored populists and partisans, and
tilted against incumbents and the establishment-played out in judicial
elections and referenda in a number of states.
In Michigan, Supreme Court
candidates were vastly outspent by political parties and an out-of-state
group in a TV ad war whose cost was estimated at $5 million to $8
million. In Alabama, combined spending exceeded $3.2 million. Election
costs remained modest in North Carolina, which offers public financing
to qualifying appellate court candidates.
In Iowa, three Supreme Court justices were ousted after out-of-state
interest groups spent nearly $700,000 to unseat them over their votes in
a 2009 gay marriage case. But organized efforts to unseat high court
justices failed in Illinois, Colorado, Alaska, Kansas and Florida.
Non-candidate groups spent heavily on TV ads in Michigan and Ohio, while
Iowa and Illinois set records for the most expensive retention
elections ever in their states.
As they have done several times over the last decade, voters rejected
efforts to change judicial selection systems.In Nevada, Question 1,
which would have replaced competitive elections with judicial
appointments and retention contests, was defeated.But in Kansas, voters
in District 1 also defeated efforts to scrap a merit selection system
and switch to competitive contests.
"Pressure on impartial justice is growing," said Bert Brandenburg,
executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign."Judges are facing
more demands to be accountable to interest groups and political
campaigns instead of the law and the constitution."
Through Monday, Nov. 1, 2010, slightly more than $12 million was spent
nationally on TV air time this year in state supreme court elections.Of
that, nearly $5.1 million - 42% of total spending for the year - was
spent in the week leading up to the election, between Oct. 26 and Nov.
1.
Including $4.6 million spent on TV ads in 2009, the current total for
the 2009-2010 election cycle is approximately $16.6 million, about the
same amount spent on judicial television advertising in the last
non-presidential election cycle, 2005-2006.
"As in past years, judicial election campaigns featured substantial
numbers of hard-hitting, mud-slinging attack ads - many of which were as
nasty as those seen in any political campaigns," said Adam Skaggs,
Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
Final estimates ofTV ad spending, as recorded by TNS Media
Intelligence/CMAG, are expected within a few days. Complete candidate
fundraising data often are not fully available until weeks, and in some
cases months, after the elections, meaning that total campaign cost
totals tend to rise with time.
Three in four Americans believe that the special-interest money needed
to finance such elections influences court decisions. From 2000 through
2009, fundraising by high-court candidates surged to $206.9 million,
more than double the $83.3 million raised in the 1990s.
This year, heavy spending and angry TV ads spread to several states
holding retention elections, which in 2000-2009 had accounted for barely
1 percent of spending in high court races. This year, high-court
retention elections in Illinois, Iowa, Colorado and Alaska resulted in
about $4.6 million in total costs-more than twice the $2.2 million
raised for all retention elections nationally in 2000-2009.
In most of the 15 states where 37 justices stood in retention elections,
however, campaign expenditures were far lower than in competitive
election states.
Overall, 33 states held some type of election. In addition to the 15
states holding one-candidate retention elections, in which incumbents
needed a "yes" vote to stay on the bench, 11 states held competitive
elections for 18 seats. In seven other states, there were no challengers
in elections that technically were competitive, granting automatic
victory to the candidate on the ballot.
The following is a round-up of major trends in the 2009-10 judicial
election campaign season, as identified by the Justice at Stake Campaign
and the Brennan Center for Justice. Further information is available at
the Judicial Elections 2010 web site.
TV Ad Data
Television ads ran this year in fourteen states with elections for the
state supreme court:Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas,
Washington and West Virginia.
Michigan saw the highest overall spending on supreme court TV ads, with
about $5.1 million spent on airtime, according to TNS Media
Intelligence/CMAG; Ohio is second with more than $1.9 million in airtime
spending.In both of these states, four candidates competed for two
Supreme Court seats.(An additional Ohio Justice, Paul Pfeifer, ran
unopposed in a vote in which no TV advertising has aired.)
The highest level of spending in a single-candidate retention race was
in Illinois, where incumbent Justice Thomas Kilbride spent more than
$1.6 millon on TV airtime through Nov. 1.
For the year, spending on television advertising in supreme court races
was evenly split between judicial candidates and non-candidate
groups.Through Nov. 1, candidates spent more than $6.1 million on
television advertising, while non-candidate groups - including political
parties and special interests - accounted for 49% of all television
airtime, spending more than $5.9 million.
Four of the top five spenders on TV airtime in supreme court elections
are non-candidate groups.The Michigan Republican Party ranked first
overall in TV spending (just over $2 million).Kilbride ranked second
($1.6 million); the Michigan State Democratic Party ranked third ($1.4
million); the Partnership for Ohio's Future ranked fourth (about
$846,000); and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which spent more
than $780,000 in support of two Republican candidates for the Michigan
Supreme Court, ranked fifth.
"Many of the harshest ads were aired by political parties and special
interest groups, which accounted for about 49% of all spending on
television ads in state supreme court elections," Skaggs said.
Through Nov. 1, spending on TV airtime in states holding
single-candidate retention elections has totaled approximately $2.1
million - approximately 17.5% of all TV spending during that time.This
level of spending in retention contests is the greatest since the
Brennan Center for Justice began compiling judicial TV ad data in 2000.
Major states
Iowa
All three state Supreme Court justices appearing on a retention ballot
were voted out, following a withering attack on a unanimous 2009 ruling
that overturned a state law banning gay marriage. The margin of defeat
was similar in each case, with about 55 percent voting "no" on another
term. Robert Hanson, the Polk County trial judge who initially ruled in
favor of gay marriage, won his retention vote.
Out-of-state groups attacking the
high-court justices included the National Organization for Marriage, the
American Families Association, the Family Research Council, the
Campaign for Working Families and Citizens United. Along with in-state
groups, reported spending to oust the three justices was about $800,000.
Fair Courts for US, a group headed by former governor Robert Ray,
reported spending nearly $400,000 in support of retaining the justices,
raising total Iowa election costs to $1.2 million. More than half, about
$700,000, came from out of state.
Iowa's supreme court had not seen a contentious retention election
before this year. The election raised concerns that wedge issues could
make it more difficult for courts, in Iowa and elsewhere, to rule in
hot-button legal disputes.
"Under our constitutional system, courts are designed to be different
from the other branches of government," Brandenburg said. "If judges in
any state begin basing their decisions on political pressure and
campaign spending, instead of the facts and the law, everyone loses."
Nevada
Question 1 was put on the ballot after spending on Nevada high court
elections rose, and after a 2006 Los Angeles Times report unearthed
questionable fundraising practices by Las Vegas trial judges. But
voters, by a margin of about 58 to 42 percent, chose to keep their
current system of nonpartisan competitive elections.
The election continued a trend of states preserving their existing judicial selection system, whether elective or appointive.
"The politics of 2010 made it a difficult climate to ask voters to
change how they picked judges," said Bert Brandenburg, executive
director of the Justice at Stake Campaign. "And yet many voters remain
concerned about campaign cash in the courthouse."
Candidates for Nevada high court raised $9.8 million in 2000-2009, ranking the state eighth nationally.
Illinois
In one of the year's most extraordinary races, Justice Thomas L.
Kilbride reported raising more than $2.5 million, while the Illinois
Civil Justice League reported raising $648,000 to defeat him. Kilbride
retained his seat with 68 percent of voters favoring another term.
Although the campaign was prompted by a business ruling, in which the
Illinois court overturned legislative limits on medical malpractice
awards, the league focused on Kilbride's record in crime cases,
memorably running an ad in which actors playing felons savor their
violent crimes and say Kilbride took their side in court.
"In Illinois, special-interest money bought one of the most tasteless TV
ads ever appearedin a court election, while a sitting justice raised
millions of dollars from plaintiffs' lawyers and other parties who will
appear in court," Brandenburg said. "In 2004, Justice Lloyd Karmeier
called Illinois election spending 'obscene,' and it's hard to see how
this year did anything to restore public trust in that state's courts."
As in 2004, unions and plaintiffs' firms backed the Democrat. National
business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American
Justice Partnership, and the American Tort Reform Association, backed
the opposition campaign.
Michigan
Including TV, Michigan was the nation's most expensive judicial election state in 2010.
Non-candidate groups, led by the state Republican and Democratic parties
and the Virginia-based Law Enforcement Alliance of America, accounted
for more than 80 percent of all TV spending.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks satellite captures of major
TV markets, has recorded $5.1 million in TV ads, as of Nov. 1. The
Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which checks TV station ad records,
placed the total at more than $8 million.
"Political parties and independent groups hijacked this election,
heavily outspending the candidates, and ads on both sides were riddled
with questionable claims," Brandenburg said. "Michigan remains a ground
zero for negative, costly court elections."
The two incumbents reported the highest campaign fundraising. About two
weeks before the election, Republican Robert Young, who won in a
landslide, reported raising $776,000, while Democrat Alton Davis, who
lost, raised $691,000. According to the most recent fundraising reports,
total fundraising among four candidates was just over $1.8 million.
Ohio, Alabama
Ohio and Alabama, the two most expensive states for the 2000-2009
decade, showed that high court campaigns can generate big numbers in
even relatively quiet years.
Of the $3.2 million reportedly raised by Alabama candidates through Oct. 19, Republicans outraised Democrats four to one.
In Ohio, the most recent reports showed that candidates had raised $2.7
million, with the Republicans outraising the Democrats. In addition, the
Chamber-related Partnership for Ohio's Future spent more than $840,000,
according to Brennan Center data.
Colorado, Alaska, Kansas, Florida
In Colorado and Alaska, campaigns opposing the retention of sitting
justices made substantial efforts but were unable to win. Alaska Justice
Dana Fabe got a 53 percent yes vote, despite a campaign by social
conservatives. Three Colorado justices survived a challenge by Clear the
Bench Colorado that focused on tax and spending issues.
"As in Iowa, 'Vote No' campaigns showed that judges in many states must
look with more concern than at the impact of single-interest protest
groups," said Skaggs. "More than ever, a single vote in a single legal
dispute might haunt judges at election time, and that will make it
harder for many to focus on facts and the law, instead of political
agendas."
Attempts by social conservatives in Kansas, and by Tea Party activists
in Florida, failed to gain significant traction on announced efforts to
unseat justices in their states.
We're a nationwide, nonpartisan partnership of more than forty-five judicial, legal and citizen organizations. We've come together because across America, your right to fair and impartial justice is at stake. Judges and citizens are deeply concerned about the growing impact of money and politics on fair and impartial courts. Our mission is to educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom--so judges can do their job protecting the Constitution, individual rights and the rule of law.
LATEST NEWS
Israel Bombs Yemen Saturday in Escalation with Houthis
The attack came a day after the Houthis claimed responsibility for a drone attack on Tel Aviv
Jul 20, 2024
Houthi-run media say Israeli air strikes Saturday targeted oil storage facilities in the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah and that there are an unspecified number of fatalities and injuries.
The attack came a day after the Houthis claimed responsibility for a drone attack on Tel Aviv that killed one person and struck just yards from a U.S. Embassy branch office.
Israel’s air strikes will not stop the Houthi's military operations in support of the Palestinian people, Houthi political bureau member Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said in a post on X, warning they will instead increase until the war in Gaza ends. “The Zionist entity will pay the price for targeting civilian facilities, and we will meet escalation with escalation,” al-Bukhaiti wrote.
Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera, “Is this going to change the course of action of a non-state actor that is motivated to support the people of Gaza? Certainly not,” Magnier said. “They’ve been given a perfect reason to increase the attacks. We have not seen the end of it – far from it,” he said.
In another post on X, the Houthis’ spokesman, Mohammed Abdulsalam, called the Israeli air strikes “a brutal Israeli aggression against Yemen that aims to deepen people’s suffering and to pressure Yemen to stop supporting Gaza.” Abdulsalam called the attack an Israeli “dream that will not come true. We affirm that this brutal aggression will only increase the determination of the Yemeni people and their valiant armed forces to be steadfast and to continue their support for Gaza. The Yemeni people are able to face all challenges for the sake of victory for oppressed Palestine and the people of Gaza, whose cause is the most just on earth.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Urges DOJ to Investigate US-Bound Netanyahu for Genocide
"We believe ample credible evidence exists to sufficiently establish that serious crimes falling within U.S. criminal jurisdiction are systematically being perpetrated in Gaza," said the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Jul 19, 2024
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to visit Washington, D.C. next week, an American legal group on Friday pressured the U.S. Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into him and other officials for committing or authorizing genocide, war crimes, and torture targeting Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Since Israel launched its retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israeli forces partly armed by the U.S. government have killed at least 38,848 people and wounded another 89,459—according to Gaza officials—while destroying civilian infrastructure and restricting the flow of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian enclave.
"We believe ample credible evidence exists to sufficiently establish that serious crimes falling within U.S. criminal jurisdiction are systematically being perpetrated in Gaza," says the Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) 23-page letter to Hope Olds, who leads the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) of the DOJ's Criminal Division.
"Given the frequent travel of Israeli officials and citizens to the United States resulting in their presence within U.S. jurisdiction, and recalling that HRSP is part of a coordinated, interagency effort to deny safe haven in the United States to human rights violators," the letter states, "the Department of Justice must urgently investigate and hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and other serious crimes being committed on a wide-scale basis in the occupied Gaza Strip, including potentially U.S. and U.S.-dual citizens."
The Israeli prime minister is expected to be in the United States from at least next Monday to Wednesday for a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden—who is currently isolating in his Delaware home due to a Covid-19 infection—and to address a joint session of Congress, despite objections from critics of Israel's war including some lawmakers.
"Netanyahu has killed more than 14,000 precious Palestinian children with U.S. weapons and support and is starving all of Gaza—and now sycophants in the White House and Congress are rolling out the red carpet for him," Maria LaHood, CCR's deputy legal director, said in a statement. "DOJ's Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section must exercise its mandate to investigate Netanyahu and hold him to account for his heinous crimes, just as it would an international criminal from any other country."
The group's letter says that "in light of Netanyahu's imminent visit, HRSP should prioritize investigating him... There is overwhelming evidence that under Netanyahu, Israeli forces and authorities are committing genocide, war crimes, and torture against Palestinians in Gaza, acts that are proscribed under federal criminal statutes and prosecutable by HRSP."
"As the most powerful political figure in Israel, Netanyahu also leads the Security Cabinet, as well as the recently dissolved War Cabinet—the two bodies responsible for setting the strategy for and directing the military assault on Gaza since October 7, 2023," the letter stresses. "He therefore bears criminal responsibility for the serious international crimes committed against the Palestinian population over the past nine months."
Various developments this week have elevated concerns for the people of Gaza. The World Health Organization said Friday that poliovirus has been detected in sewage samples at six locations in the strip, and Amnesty International on Thursday published interviews with 27 former detainees who described being tortured by Israeli forces.
A Wednesday report from Oxfam detailed what the group called Israel's "water war crimes" in Gaza. That same day, Israeli lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing "the establishment of a Palestinian state" west of the Jordan River—widely seen as an effort to send a message to Netanyahu ahead of his trip to D.C.
International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders, and Israel faces a South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice—which on Friday issued a nonbinding advisory opinion that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and must end "as rapidly as possible."
So far, legal efforts to hold the Biden administration accountable for enabling Israel's genocidal violence against Palestinians have been unsuccessful. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the president, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
CCR attorney Katherine Gallagher, who represented plaintiffs in the case, said that "this stunning abdication of the court's role to serve as a check on the executive even in the face of its support for genocide should set off alarm bells for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Death of 40 Haitians in Boat Fire Shows 'Crucial Need' for Safe, Legal Migration: UN
"Haiti's socio-economic situation is in agony," said one advocate. "The extreme violence over the past months has only brought Haitians to resort to desperate measures even more."
Jul 19, 2024
United Nations experts on Friday renewed calls to protect migrants following the death of at least 40 Haitians in a boat fire in the Atlantic Ocean.
The New York Timesreported that over 80 people were packed into the vessel when it caught fire off the coast of Cap-Haïtien en route to the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The United Nations' International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that 41 migrants were rescued by the Haitian Coast Guard, with 11 of the survivors including burn victims rushed to the nearest hospital.
"This devastating event highlights the risks faced by children, women, and men migrating through irregular routes, demonstrating the crucial need for safe and legal pathways for migration," said Grégoire Goodstein, IOM's chief of mission for Haiti. "Haiti's socio-economic situation is in agony. The extreme violence over the past months has only brought Haitians to resort to desperate measures even more."
Haiti is enduring a humanitarian and security crisis in which over 1,000 people have been killed, wounded, or abducted by members of gangs that control much of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Hundreds of Kenyan police officers have been deployed to Haiti as part of a multinational force tasked with restoring order.
According to IOM:
The lack of economic opportunities, a collapsing health system, school closures, and the absence of prospects are pushing many to consider migration as the only way to survive... IOM research found that 84% of migrants returned had left to seek job opportunities abroad. For the vast majority of Haitians, regular migration is an extremely challenging journey to consider, let alone pursue, leaving many seeing irregular migration as their only option, a particularly life-threatening one in most instances.
IOM said the Haitian Coast Guard "has observed an increase in the number of attempts and departures by boat" in recent months.
"Coast guards from countries in the region, including the United States, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Jamaica have also reported a growing number of boats originating from Haiti being intercepted at sea," the group said. "More than 86,000 migrants have been forcibly returned to Haiti by neighboring countries this year. In March, despite a surge in violence and the closure of airports throughout the country, forced returns increased by 46%, reaching 13,000 forced returns in March alone."
Amid pressure from hundreds of advocacy groups—and alleged abuse of Haitian migrants by U.S. border authorities—the Biden administration in 2022 extended deportation protections, known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), for more than 100,000 Haitians already in the United States through this August 3. This marked a departure from the administration's earlier mass deportation of Haitian asylum-seekers.
Last month, the administration further extended TPS eligibility for over 300,000 Haitians in the U.S. for an additional 18 months, a move hailed by migrant rights advocates.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular