judgesonmerit.org

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United to allow corporations and unions to directly spend money in support of political candidates, much attention has been paid to the ruling’s implications on future presidential and legislative elections. Yet commentators have been slower to point out how the decision could effect judicial elections.

In Friday’s National Law Journal, Tony Mauro flagged the issue, quoting PMC’s Deputy Director Shira Goodman,

It’s like the Supreme Court said, ‘Let the money roll in.’

Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg was also cited:

This ruling pours gasoline on the fire of special-interest money that has been overtaking judicial elections. Interest group spending imperils our right to impartial justice by pressuring judges to rule with one eye on big-money contributors.

Money influences politics. This is an unfortunate yet unavoidable reality. But the judiciary differs from the executive and legislative branches of government. Unlike a senator, a judge is not intended to represent specific constituencies. A judge must lend an impartial ear to any and all who come before her. Unfettered independent campaign expenditures from the very parties who may appear before the judge in court severely jeopardize this impartiality.

In effect, the Citizens United decision will only increase the flow of money into judicial elections, casting greater doubt on an already contentious process. How will litigants be confident appearing in court knowing that the opposing party spent thousands to get that judge elected?

They can’t. Judicial elections are inimical to judicial goals of fairness and should be abolished in favor of a merit selection method of selecting our appellate judges. The Supreme Court has all but mandated that money will continue to influence politics, but we must ensure that it does not infect our judiciary.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS