judgesonmerit.org

Adam Liptak  reported yesterday on retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s keynote address at a Georgetown law school conference devoted in part to last week’s divisive Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. O’Connor, a long-time opponent of electing judges, was clear in her criticism of the decision and its implications for judicial elections:

In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.

Judicial elections are already a problem. Now corporations and unions will be able to spend directly to help a particular judicial candidate get elected.

O’Connor has been vocal in her support of Merit Selection methods for selecting judges, emphasizing that electing judges compromises judicial independence.

O’Connor forecasted the ways in which special interests might cash in on these post-Citizens United allowances:

I think today we can anticipate that labor unions and trial lawyers, for instance, might have the financial means to win one particular state judicial election, and maybe tobacco firms and energy companies have enough to win the next one. And if both sides unleash their campaign spending monies without restrictions, then I think mutually assured destruction is the most likely outcome.

PMC’s Deputy Director Shira Goodman attended the conference and will be posting her impressions.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS