judgesonmerit.org

Earlier this week, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, along with 27 national, state and local reform groups, filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. Massey. The question raised in this case is whether the due process clause requires judges in certain situations to recuse from cases involving campaign contributors. The brief argues that the essence of due process is a fair and impartial judge:

[P]recedent, and the history of the Due Process Clause, require that the Court find that judicial campaign contributions, in certain circumstances, create the reality or appearance of judicial bias in violation of the Due Process Clause.

The brief discusses the history of judicial selection and notes that because of the increasing expense of elections and the growing importance of campaign contributions “Judicial elections have created a crisis in public confidence.” The brief discusses the evolution of efforts in the states and nationally to address this crisis and improve the judicial selection process. Merit Selection was one of the reforms highlighted.

We are proud to be part of this brief and are eager to see how the Court will address this critical question. Keep checking for updates. To read more about this brief, visit Text and History; information about all the amici briefs filed in the case is available in this press release from Justice At Stake and the Brennan Center.

A petition for certiorari has been filed in Caperton v. Massey – the case arising out of the mess of recent West Virginia judicial election campaigns. We’ve written about the situation stemming from the refusal of a justice to recuse in a case involving a significant campaign contributor. The case has made it through the West Virginia courts, and a high-powered legal team led by former Solicitor General Ted Olsen is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The main question presented for the Court’s consideration is whether a judge’s failure to recuse in a case involving a major campaign contributor violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Several amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petition, including some filed by our national partners, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Committee for Economic Development and the American Bar Association. Gavel Grab has a post about the various briefs here.

This case presents an important opportunity for the high court to set standards for when judges should recuse in cases involving major campaign donors, and we’re eager to see what happens. Of course, we think the whole problem could be avoided by getting judges out of the fundraising business through the adoption of Merit Selection.