Report: Judicial spending doubles in last decade Michigan is one of few states to take steps toward reform

By Greg Bluestein Associated Press Writer A new national report shows campaign fundraising for elections to the nation's top state courts has doubled to more than $200 million over the last decade. The report by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and two other groups also concludes the surge is partly fueled by "super spenders" who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence down-ticket races. A handful of states have taken small steps toward reforms. Wisconsin lawmakers enacted public financing for judicial races, and the Michigan Supreme Court also adopted tough new recusal rules. Lead author James Sample says they are just initial steps, not sweeping overhauls aimed at ending political pressure in judicial races. In a decade that saw an explosion of spending for state judicial elections, Michigan ranked sixth nationally in candidate fundraising, at $12.8 million, and third nationally in money spent on TV ads for high court races. Michigan also was awash in independent TV ads, aired by groups including the state Chamber of Commerce, and the state Democratic and Republican parties. According to the report, spending on state Supreme Court elections has more than doubled nationally in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, and deep-pocketed special interests play a dominant role in choosing state jurists. These trends include skyrocketing special-interest spending, a dramatic increase in TV ads that often feature harsh attacks, and the rise of "super spender" organizations seeking to sway the courts, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and plaintiffs' lawyers routing money through shell groups. In a foreword, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warns that recent trends endanger public confidence in elected state courts. "This crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing," she writes. "Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold." According to the report, Michigan ranks among states with the costliest Supreme Court elections, the highest TV ad spending for these contests and the nastiest advertising aired. Here are key findings about Michigan from "The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change." TV ad spending reached $3.6 million in Michigan for 2008, more than quadrupling levels from two years earlier and ranking second nationally for 2008. For the decade, Michigan ranked third for TV spending ($10.9 million). These TV cost estimates are almost certainly conservative, the report said. About $18.6 million was spent by candidate groups and on independent ads in Michigan, ranking the state sixth nationally for the 2000-2009 decade. For the 2007-2008 biennium, about $5.9 million was spent on Michigan's court elections, by candidates and independent groups, when all types of spending are combined. Super spender groups, which seek to sway judicial elections either with large candidate contributions or by mounting independent TV campaigns, played an unusually heavy role in Michigan. In dollars spent, the state's Chamber of Commerce and two state parties all ranked among the top 10 super spender groups nationally for the 2000-2009 decade. Nasty campaign tactics followed. A questionable Democratic Party ad attacking incumbent Michigan Chief Justice Cliff Taylor purported to show him asleep at the bench during a trial. Ads portrayed Democratic nominee Diane Hathaway as a terrorist sympathizer and weak on crime. Michigan's top spenders during the decade were the state Chamber of Commerce, at almost $3 million; the state Democratic Party and state Republican Party both at about $2.6 million. States like Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have adopted tools to insulate courts from special-interest money, such as public financing of judicial elections, new consideration of judicial appointment/retention election systems, and tougher ethics rules forcing judges to sit out cases involving financial benefactors. In 2009, Michigan became a national pioneer when its Supreme Court created a rule by which the entire court could decide whether an individual justice should not take part in cases involving major campaign benefactors. But the report's authors fear the overall trends spell danger. "The next decade will be a perilous time for fair courts," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. "For more than two centuries, Americans have counted on judges to ignore political pressure. But the flood of special-interest money is changing that. Without reforms, there is a real risk of irreversible damage to public confidence in our courts." James Sample said, "The issues detailed in this report transcend America's partisan divisions. At least when it comes to the courts, concern over the influence of green is not matter of red versus blue." "This explosion in spending fuels the growing public concern that judges will favor the biggest spenders," said Adam Skaggs, counsel at the Brennan Center. "And with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, the amount of money flowing into judicial elections isn't likely to diminish any time soon. That will mean increasing special interest pressures on judges -- and increasing public concern that justice is for sale." Justice O'Connor, who has championed court reforms since retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006, said in her letter introducing the report, "We all have a stake in ensuring that courts remain fair, impartial, and independent. If we fail to remember this, partisan infighting and hardball politics will erode the essential function of our judicial system as a safe place where every citizen stands equal before the law." Published: Tue, Aug 17, 2010

––––––––––––––––––––
 Subscribe to the Legal News!
 https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available