Judges: Politics for me but not for thee

It's no shock that appellate and supreme court judges in Tennessee are political, but it is shocking to hear them claim that they oppose elections "because politics and money corrupt the judiciary" and yet give heavily to candidates who will protect them from facing contested elections. Tennessee judges donate to politicians who oppose judicial elections | tennessean.com | The Tennessean:

According to Wade, Tennessee's Supreme Court justices and appellate judges uniformly oppose a switch to an electoral selection process.

"Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn't mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues," Wade said. "All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.

. . . .

Wade was the most frequent contributor to political campaigns over the past four election cycles among judges from Tennessee's highest courts.

BTW, despite saying repeatedly that these big spending judges gave to both Democrats (who characteristically like the undemocratic and unconstitutional TN Plan) and Republicans (who more often than not oppose the TN Plan), the reporter failed to ask the obvious question (that, or failed to like the answer to said question): were the Republicans who got money from judges supporters of not electing judges?

Well, Republican Doug Overbey--the Maryville lawyer who was just about the only Republican in the Senate who fought to preserve the TN Plan (here, and here), sure doesn't count. Neither would the Republican who faced TN Plan opponent Mike Bell in the primary (story here).  Judges gave money in a primary race?  Someone who makes a campaign contribution in a primary, particularly a primary of the other political party, hardly seems like someone who "contribut[es] to campaigns from time to time."

This is great reporting from Andy Sher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Judges' donations draw criticism | Chattanooga Times Free Press, but I have to say that it concerned me to read this statement from the article:

All five Supreme Court justices back the Tennessee Plan for selecting and retaining judges.

Look, because of my experience over on the years on this issue, I was aware that all the Supreme Court justices liked the Tennessee Plan--which ignores the constitution's requirement of contested elections. But it is stunning to think that this is common knowledge. Especially when you consider that they would be the ones deciding on whether a given system complies with the Tennessee Constitution.

And that's the problem with a system that insulates judges from "politics" (read: accountability). The reason that a lot of money is potentially spent on judicial elections is because the persons elected in such elections have a LOT of impact on voters' lives. I guess we voters just need to just leave all this politicking to judges and unaccountable commissions . . .

Irony of buying favor from judges

Nice op/ed from Gail Kerr Tennessean, "Fundraising to Keep Judges from Being Bought is Ironic"):

Lawyers and former judges are raising money from big law firms to try and preserve the current method of seating Tennessee's appellate court judges.

The irony is not lost: Those very legal eagles argue that allowing judges to be popularly elected would create a system in which special interests and big powerful law firms can buy the state's judiciary.

My only quibble is with Kerr's flat assertion that, "Overall, the current system has worked beautifully to place appeals court judges who have followed the rule of law." Who says?

"Nicely" stated on "problems" with electing judges

Aside from the fact that contested elections for all judges is required by Tennessee's constitution, it is disingenuous for politicians to claim that elections beget "bought" judges. State Rep. Frank Nicely has it right I think (New fight brews over judge selection process in Tennessee | tennessean.com | The Tennessean):

The Tennessee Plan will expire in 2012. Emboldened by new Republican majorities after November's elections, however, opponents may press the issue sooner. Opponents say that in addition to being unconstitutional, the Tennessee Plan makes judges unaccountable to voters.

'If elections are so crooked that you cannot elect a judge … then what does that say about our form of government?' said state Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Knoxville.

Soros-selected judges for Tennessee

It appears that lawyers' special interest groups are gearing up for a serious fight to defend their hold on Tennessee's current unconstitutional system of selecting judges. "John Jay's college of justice" and "Help us help us help ourselves." Actually, I don't believe they were caught off guard in 2009, as the group carrying the water at that time was the TBA. This go 'round, with Republican majorities in both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly, retention-election supporters will be working under the auspices of a Soros-funded group calling itself Tennesseeans for Fair and Impartial Courts ("TFIC").

Here's more information about what we can expect from TFIC.

Voting for judges in the TN primary

I think many Tennessee voters will be mildly surprised to see the names of two judges on the ballot when they step into the polling booth tomorrow. That's part of the "beauty" of Tennessee's current (and contra-constitutional) system for filling appellate court and Supreme Court seats. Noone really knows anything of substance about the "candidates," and few faithful primary voters are likely to simply vote for "nobody."

That being said, if you agree that this system is wrong, you'll be able to register your opinion about that by voting "no" for these "candidates." Here's an excerpt from an article by Family Action Council of Tennessee's David Fowler. Judicial Elections - Judging the Judges: ("What Will Your Vote Communicate?"):

So, if you want to make a “negative” statement about things like judicial activism, Tennessee’s method of electing Supreme Court judges, etc, then the best way to make that statement is to vote “no.”

If you approve of the current system and current judicial philosophy that prevails in this country (and state), then the best way to communicate that is to vote “yes.” It would be my opinion that not to vote would leave the Judges, Governor and legislature in a position of not knowing why there were fewer people voting in the judicial elections compared to gubernatorial, congressional or state legislative races. Not to vote will leave them wondering if the low vote totals signify voter apathy or an unwillingness to vote for someone you don’t know anything about.

While I can't really say whether these two judges--Sharon Lee and John McLarty, are "judicial activists," I do think your "no" vote will signify that you disagree with them avoiding contested elections, which are plainly required by our Constitution. Go ahead, they won't take it personally. ;)



Visit the Judicial Reform Coalition Blog for more information on judicial selection in Tennessee.

Also at WisdomisVindicated blog.

Trust us lawyers to pick your judges!

This National Journal article hand wrings about campaign advocacy from certain sources. National Journal Online - Big Money Already Flowing Into Judicial Elections:

Close to four months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to roll back restrictions on corporate political spending, conservatives continue to downplay its significance.

Predictions that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling will unleash a torrent of corporate money are wildly overblown, free speech advocates insist. As evidence, they argue that corporate money has yet to flood elections in the 26 states that already impose no limit on corporate spending.

But a closer look at state-level elections suggests that independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other special interests are substantial. This is particularly true in judicial elections, which have gotten dramatically costlier, nastier and more controversial over the past decade. The Citizens United ruling may impact judicial races even more drastically than federal elections, some experts argue.

Actually, a closer look merely demonstrates that "corporate" expenditures are only a smidgeon higher than expenditures from "lawyers and lobbyists" (ahhh, if only we all were able to, as individuals, give serious money to candidates we supported . . .). But the underlying message of the article (i.e., the message espoused by the experts selected by Eliza Newlin Carney to comment on the subject) is that electing judges is unwise because voters somehow don't appreciate Rule of Law. All the anti-judicial-election commenters imply that we need low-key campaigns for judges because voters cast ballots based on the political positions of judicial candidates. Actually, polling data reflect that voters care more about judicial activism than they do about a judge's position on particular issues.

Uh, what does Chief Justice Holder know about running for office?

Gender Campaign | The Fly-By | Memphis Flyer:

Last week, the [Memphis Area Women's Council] held its first Run Women Run event with Tennessee representative Karen Camper, Germantown mayor Sharon Goldsworthy, Tennessee Supreme Court chief justice Janice Holder, and attorney Ruby Wharton.

According to Deborah Clubb, executive director of the local women's council, Run Women Run was held to 'empower women with enough knowledge to know it's not impossible' to be elected to political office.

. . . .

During the non-partisan event, attendees heard advice on running for and serving in a political office. They discussed campaign strategies, financial tips, and the importance of honor and integrity in politics.