If we are going to insist on electing judges, do we want them to spend their time discussing issues with voters -- or, for that matter, do we want them doing their actual job of deciding cases -- or would we prefer that they spend their time asking for campaign contributions?
Want daily updates on important issues? Subscribe to
A criminal probe in Wisconsin targets several major spenders on state supreme court races. Yet the justices who benefited from that spending will likely get to decide whether this probe moves forward.
Last week, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court rejected a request by a conservative “dark money” group to keep its donors secret. The dlsclosure could render millions of dollars in campaign contributions illegal.
The Pennsylvania high court in recent years has seen some of the country's most expensive judicial elections, charges of nepotism, and an abuse of power scandal which ended with criminal charges and house arrest for a former justice. New ethics rules aim to curb judges' bad behavior.
Big business groups target judges who they believe will rule for plaintiffs in civil lawsuits, and plaintiffs’ lawyers fund ads attacking judges who they believe are more inclined to throw out lawsuits. Neither group actually cares about criminal justice.
North Carolinians fed up with a raft of new sharply-conservative policies that would hurt the poor, women, minorities, and the environment are expanding their weekly 'Moral Monday' protests to legislators' home districts around the state.
The North Carolina legislature is changing the law to allow more money to influence judicial elections, and it is weakening the rules that prevent judges from hearing cases in which they are or appear to be biased or impartial.