Judicial independence, should judges be held accountable?
Most people go to court looking for a fair shake. But some special interest groups think they have a better idea: ensuring they'll win in court by spending big money to elect judges who agree with them and to oust those who don't.
Over the past decade, special interests have chipped away at that ideal. State Supreme Court races have often degenerated into nasty battles with corporate interests on one side and trial lawyers on the other. Such groups have pushed spending on what once were low profile elections from $83 million in the 1990s to nearly $207 million in the past decade. Scurrilous attacks and nasty ad campaigns are now routine in judicial races. Judges themselves raise money from lawyers, doctors, union chiefs and business executives who then appear in their courts, an obvious conflict of interest.
A few methods exist to lessen special interest influence in judicial races. Iowa is one of about two dozen states that use "merit selection," where judges are appointed then run for retention. North Carolina and New Mexico use public financing, which can help insulate judges from special interest money. But these latest campaigns challenge even those safeguards.
This year in Iowa, three judges on the state Supreme Court come before voters in a judicial retention election. Many Iowans oppose their retention because these judges against all precedent, all reason -imposed same-sex marriage on the state of Iowa.
Not surprisingly, the ruling elite is now criticizing groups such as the National Organization for Marriage for "hijacking" the process of "merit selection" by running TV ads and other communications in an effort to encourage a "no" vote on these judges.
USA TODAY claims that it is not against judicial retention elections, but against "outside groups" (we have more than 50,000 supporters in Iowa, so we hardly fit this bill) running advertising campaigns opposing judges based on a single decision. This position is essentially the same as opposing judicial elections completely.
Why? Because put simply, an election is an election. Elections will have people and groups standing on both sides of the aisle communicating with voters on why they should vote yes or no. You cannot constitutionally have an election and then limit the participation of key groups or determine that citizens can only vote against the judges if there is more than one issue at stake.
Links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-19-editorial19_ST_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-19-editorial19_ST1_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip