judgesonmerit.org

The Birmingham News reported recently on the role of political action committees (PACs) in channeling contributions from various sources into the Alabama Supreme Court race.  PACs are set up to let various parties and interest groups pool their money.  The PAC appears as a campaign contributor, but the actual contributors’ names do not.

The system also makes it difficult for voters to figure out who financially backs candidates, David Lanoue [chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama] said. “That is meaningful information,” he said. “Donors have agendas.”

“Alabama needs to peel back the curtain so the average voter can know who is giving the money and which agenda it is likely to represent,” said Charlie Hall, of Justice At Stake.  In a recent post, Gavel Grab provides a closer look at funding for the Alabama Supreme Court race.

As we have previously noted, the Alabama Supreme Court race is becoming more expensive and increasingly negative.  The influence of large campaign contributions, through PACs or from direct donors, can be eliminated by replacing judicial elections with Merit Selection, a system that focuses on one’s qualifications as a judge, not on how much money one can raise.

The Birmingham News reports that the “relatively tranquil Alabama Supreme Court race turned last week toward more familiar territory of big spending, special-interest politics and attacks on the candidates.” What’s happening in Alabama should come as no surprise to those who watch state court elections.

The candidates are trading accusations about false and misleading polls and advertisments.  The amount of money spent on ads is steadily increasing, and an out-of-state group from Virgina, the same group that got involved in the 2007 Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, is spending money to advertise for one of the candidates.  Gavel Grab has an interesting report about this ad.

This election is following trends set in other states where judges are elected in partisan contests. Fundraising records are broken almost immediately after they are set, and third parties, including out-of-state groups, are getting involved in the elections.  Does using this system to select appellate court judges make any sense?