Oct 13 2008
Texas Study Links Campaign Contributions and Supreme Court Litigation
A new study by Texans for Public Justice finds that most of the money being contributed to the six candidates currently running for the Texas Supreme Court (three incumbents and three challengers) comes from lawyers and litigants who’ve had cases before the Court in the last three years. Lawyers and law firms litigating before the Court comprised the biggest group of campaign contributors.
Texas — like Pennsylvania — is one of a handful of states that elects all its judges in partisan elections. These elections have become increasingly expensive. As the new study demonstrates, the campaigns are funded in very large part by parties doing business before the state Supreme Court. This only serves to solidify the public perception that money matters and affects judicial decisionmaking.
The study did not analyze the outcomes of the cases at issue, but only the degree to which campaign contributors are involved in Supreme Court litigation. This focus highlights a major problem with electing judges — that campaign contributions foster a belief that “Justice is for Sale,” and weakens public confidence in the courts. It doesn’t really matter if campaign contributors are winning more frequently than other litigants; if the public believes they get a benefit, the damage is done.
Tags: campaign contributions, partisan elections, Texans for Public justice, Texas
Entries RSS
[…] like Pennsylvania, elects all judges in partisan election contests. We’ve written recently about a new study finding that the majority of campaign contributions in the current campaign come […]