Judicial elections turn expensive, polarized, and nasty
Nevertheless, fights over the influence of money and divisive social issues are going on in several states. Groups in Kansas and Arizona are now pushing for direct elections of judges. An initiative in South Dakota in 2004 that would have changed to judicial appointments of trial court judges was defeated after Focus on the Family's James Dobson encouraged voters to reject it. North Carolina adopted a public financing program in 2002, and saw contributions decline in 2004. Illinois, home to the most expensive court race on record, is also considering a public funding measure and Washington State recently passed contribution limits, but has seen independent political action committees—supported by both sides—take a more active role in elections.
Committees of lawyers in several states are urging candidates not to answer questionnaires and to keep campaigns civil, with mixed success. Most Supreme Court candidates in Ohio, where campaigns have been less contentious since 2000, have signed pledges that require them to disavow any ads that question the integrity of other candidates.
The American Bar Association and a number of judges are urging states to do more, either by appointing judges or adopting public financing. "In a state like Ohio, we should have excellent, outstanding lawyers standing in line to be on the Supreme Court and we don't. We simply do not," says Chief Justice Thomas Moyers of the Ohio Supreme Court. "Some people who would make the very best judges don't want to go through the process. We have to do something." With interested parties on both sides, it won't be easy.
advertisement
