JP Election Brief: Controversy around judicial election laws
The JP Election Brief | |
|---|---|
| Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections | |
 | |
| In this issue... | |
| |
| |
March 20, 2014
| Another primary concluded this week as Illinois voters selected their Democratic and Republican candidates. In this week's Election Brief, we'll look at some differing opinions on election processes and laws in North Carolina, Montana and Minnesota. We'll also look at some controversy from a cancelled Georgia race and a Texas incumbent that was unseated by only one vote. | ||
 | ||
|
A low-key judicial primary
On March 18, Illinois voters headed to the polls for the 2014 primaries. While there were some hot contests for gubernatorial and other legislative positions, the judicial primaries proved to be more subdued. Even with sunny weather, voter turnout was low even for a primary election. By 4pm on Tuesday, only 8% of eligible voters in Chicago had cast their ballots according to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.[1] With polls in the city open from 6am through 7pm, the unofficial election results counted 220,649 voters, approximately 16% of those registered.[2]
The last two elections saw statewide turnouts between 23-24% according to assistant executive director of the Illinois State Board of Elections, Jim Tenuto.[3] Tenuto commented that there seemed to have been a lack of interest and excitement for the primary elections in the state. Election officials speculated that the absence of big Democratic contests may have been a cause of this lack of enthusiasm.[3]
|
Circuit Court: |
Subcircuits:
|
Be sure to check out Judgepedia's coverage of the unfolding primary results in Illinois!
Paulding Superior Court election cancelled amid investigation, withdrawals
The Paulding Judicial Circuit in Georgia's Seventh Superior Court District will no longer have candidates on the ballot for the judicial election.
Elizabeth Osborne Williams originally entered the race for the Seventh Superior Court District seat as a challenger to her father, incumbent judge James R. Osborne. Osborne, who originally filed for candidacy on the first day of filing, withdrew his candidacy on March 10, 2014, and announced his intent to retire at the end of his term.[4] Williams was the only candidate that filed for election to replace Osborne, and she filed on the March 7 deadline.
Some critics have claimed that Judge Obsborne qualified to run only to discourage challengers from filing against his daughter.[4][5][6] Government agencies charged with election oversight opened investigations into the circumstances. The Judicial Qualifications Commissions of Georgia, a commission with oversight authority pertaining to qualifications, conduct, and ethics of Georgia judges and judicial candidates, agreed not to pursue ethics charges if both Williams and Osborne withdrew their candidacy. Shortly thereafter, Williams withdrew. In a TV interview, Osborne denied any scheme or wrongdoing.[5]
Because there are no qualified candidates on the ballot this year, the Paulding Judicial Circuit judge will be selected through the gubernatorial appointment method of selection.[5]
Running for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court no easy task
| Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Courts Staff highlights interesting events in the world of judicial elections across the nation. Make sure to use Judgepedia's Election Central the rest of the week as a hub for all your judicial election needs. |
Four seats are up for election on the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2014. In the 2012 election, only one seat was on the ballot. Incumbent Paul Newby faced off against challenger Sam Ervin, but the race turned out to be a pricey one, as far as state judicial elections go, with almost $4 million dollars being spent on the race. Quite a bit of the money came from independent groups rather than the war chests of the candidates.
However, 2014's races promise to be different because in 2013 the state decided to stop providing public funding for judicial candidates. With public financing, a candidate had to raise a certain threshold amount. They were then able to receive public money to help finance their campaign. The money they could raise and spend was capped. In 2014, there will be no limit to the amount a candidate can raise or spend. The catch is, each candidate must raise all their own funds.
Experts have estimated a supreme court candidate will need to raise at least a million dollars to mount a competitive campaign. John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, believes making candidates raise the money they need for their campaigns is a good thing. He has argued that since candidates for the North Carolina Supreme Court are running for a statewide seat, it takes more than $350,000 to mount an effective campaign.[7]
While it might be a good thing for candidates to raise their own money, the task is time-consuming and can have judges asking for money from lawyers and businesses who might later appear before them in court. Because independent groups are able to pump money into the supreme court races, the campaign process is causing some to question how fair and impartial justices on the state's highest court can be if they're forced to ask for money to get elected. Incumbent Justice Cheri Beasley's campaign consultants have advised her she needs to raise as much as 2 million dollars to keep her seat on the court. Her days will have to be lengthened to allow her to fit in time to do her work on the court and put in time making calls to raise money for her campaign.[8] In an interview, Beasley told WFAE 90.7,
| “ | I think once the people of North Carolina understand that's the system judges operate under, they really are quite offended.[9] | ” |
| —Cheri Beasley[8] | ||
Although every registered voter has a say in who sits on the state supreme court, it can be difficult to find much information about judicial candidates. North Carolina's supreme court races are also nonpartisan, so candidates aren't able to promote their affiliation with a political party. Candidates have a short time to get voters familiar with their name, and they need to reach voters statewide. This is why so many judicial candidates rely on television ads, even though they're expensive. North Carolina is one of 22 states where state supreme court judges must run for election.
See also: North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2014
One vote decides Shelby County Court race after provisional votes are counted
A winner has officially been determined in the narrow Texas county court race detailed in last week's Election Brief.[10]
Shelby County incumbent Rick Campbell requested a recount after receiving one vote too few in the March 4, 2014 primary. Opponent Allison Harbison, who garnered significant support from voters concerned about a recently closed medical facility, received 1629 votes to Campbell's 1628. Whether Campbell would maintain his seat or concede it to Harbison was contingent upon the recount as well as 5 provisional ballots which had yet to be counted.[10]
Of the five provisional voters, Campbell and Harbison each received one, leaving the margin of victory unchanged. Though Harbison will not take office until after the general election in November, the lack of a Democratic opponent dictates that she will become the next Shelby County Court judge.[10]
Regarding provisional voting, the Texas Secretary of State writes on VoteTexas.gov,
| “ | Provisional voting is designed to allow a voter whose name does not appear on the list of registered voters due to an administrative error to vote. The voter must complete an affidavit stating the reasons he or she is qualified to vote.[9] | ” |
| —Texas Secretary of State[11] | ||
Laws conflict over partisan endorsements for Montana judicial elections
A ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 allowed for partisan endorsements of judicial candidates in Montana for the first time in 77 years.[12] In February of 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to reinstate the ban on such endorsements.[13] The new rules will likely affect the races for two seats on the Montana Supreme Court this year.
In September of 2012, right before the election, the federal court ruled that banning political organizations from endorsing judicial candidates amounted to an unconstitutional restriction of free-speech. However, in the 2012 supreme court race between Ed Sheehy and Laurie McKinnon, the candidates agreed not to accept any partisan endorsements. Acceptance of such endorsements would have violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that judicial candidates may not "seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization."[14] Due to these conflicting state and federal laws, it will be interesting to see how Montana's 2014 candidates react.
Up for election in 2014 are two state supreme court seats. Justice James Rice is facing a challenge by W. David Herbert and Justice Michael Wheat will compete for his seat against Lawrence VanDyke.
Though the race is still considered nonpartisan, both justices have served in partisan legislative positions in the past. Justice Rice was a Republican state representative and Justice Wheat was a Democratic state senator. As for their opponents, Herbert was a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008, running to represent Wyoming. VanDyke is currently Montana's solicitor general and his partisan affiliation is unknown.[15][16]
Drive to abolish judicial races in Minnesota
Minnesota: A group called the Coalition of Impartial Justice is lobbying to change the way the voters of Minnesota pick the state’s judges. The bipartisan group began lobbying at the capitol in St. Paul on February 26, 2014. Its goal is to replace the system of political challenges to judicial seats with a retention system, a system used by neighboring Iowa.[17]
Under that system, judges would undergo an independent review and, based on their record, voters would vote simply whether or not to keep them in office. Supporters of the retention system point out that, while there would be no challengers, most judges currently run unopposed with little outside scrutiny. Supporters also cite the costs of running politicized campaigns during election season.[17][18]
On March 12, a mixed-voice vote at the Subcommittee on Elections at the Minnesota Senate moved forward a proposal to amend the state constitution to mandate retention elections. The bill was sponsored by Senator Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope. It now goes to the Rules Committee. If passed by the full legislature, the amendment will be on a statewide ballot in November.[18]
A major supporter of the bill is former Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson. He argued to the Senate that partisan elections force judges to take issue positions. He said,
| “ | You folks run on platforms. A judge can’t run on a platform. That’s antithetical to what a judge does. A judge decides cases based on the law and fact in front of him or her.[9] | ” |
| —Eric Magnuson[19] | ||
Subcommittee member Senator Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, criticized the proposed system, which calls on a commission to evaluate judges and recommend replacements, after which the governor would appoint one. The new system would not allow for outside candidates to challenge a judge’s seat. He was concerned it would impede the voters’ right to select judges. Limmer said,
| “ | I don’t see the public pounding our doors for this.[9] | ” |
| —Warren Limmer[19][17][20] | ||
Attorney Greg Wersal, a fellow critic, agrees with Limmer that the amendment is a solution in search of a problem. He claimed the effort is in truth a drive by sitting judges to protect their seats. Wersal pointed out that Minnesota voters have not voted out an incumbent supreme court justice in over 80 years.[17]
Crowded races and the question of marriage licenses
New Mexico: If there is no incumbent running for re-election, sometimes several candidates are attracted to the election. For example, in Curry County, New Mexico, the current probate court judge, Kevin D. Duncan, is not running for another term. Four Republican candidates and one Democratic candidate have filed for that race.[21]
A New Mexico Supreme Court ruling from December 2013 deemed it unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Judge Kevin D. Duncan has since stopped performing marriage ceremonies completely, pointing to a lack of clarification as to whether or not he is allowed to. "There was nothing passed by the Legislature or anything telling us whether we could or not," he said.[22] New Mexican municipal, probate, and district judges can perform marriage ceremonies, but are not required to. Clovis Municipal Court Judge Jan Garrett has also stopped performing the ceremonies. Due to religious beliefs, she will not marry same-sex couples. She also quit doing marriage ceremonies altogether, explaining, "I am not going to discriminate against anybody in anything I do."[22] It will be interesting to see if the issue becomes important to the election of Judge Duncan's sucessor, and to other judicial races across the state.
| Curry County Probate Court candidates | Party |
|---|---|
| Mark E. Lansford | Republican |
| Randy L. Rodriguez | Republican |
| Joseph C. Champouillon | Republican |
| Holly K. Glenn | Republican |
| Charles Benny Adams | Democratic |
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ CBS Chicago, "Illinois Primary 2014: In Chicago, Voter Turnout Extremely Low," March 18, 2014
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Chicago Elections, "General Primary Election - Unofficial Summary Report," March 18, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Reuters, "Illinois primary voters pick candidates for governor, Senate," March 18, 2014
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Paulding judicial candidate withdraws from race," by Steve Visser, March 18, 2014
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Dallas-Hiram Patch, "Paulding Superior Court Judgeship Will Be Governor's Appointment," By Scott Bernarde, March 17, 2014
- ↑ Ledger-Inquirer, "Chuck Williams: Paulding County judge shenanigans highlight lack of integrity," by Chuck Williams, March 17, 2014
- ↑ WFAE 90.7, "Majority of supreme court seats up for grabs. Are they also up for sale?" February 26, 2014
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 WFAE 90.7, "The Awkward World Of Judicial Stump Speeches," March 18, 2014, accessed March 19, 2014
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 KSLA News, "Recount: Harbison ousts incumbent in race for Shelby Co. judge," March 11, 2014
- ↑ VoteTexas.gov, FAQ, accessed March 19, 2014
- ↑ The Huffington Post, "Montana Nonpartisan Judicial Elections System Struck Down By Appeals Court," September 18, 2012
- ↑ The Republic, "US Supreme Court denies Montana bid to revive judicial endorsements ban," February 25, 2014
- ↑ Montana Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 4.1, accessed March 20, 2014
- ↑ Gavel Grab, "Two High Court Incumbents Face Challengers in Montana," March 11, 2014
- ↑ Library of Congress Web Archives, "Election 2008 Web Archive - W. David Herbert for Congress", accessed March 20, 2014
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 ‘’Star Tribune,’’ "Group pushes constitutional amendment to change Minn. judicial elections," February 26, 2014
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 ‘’Star Tribune,’’ “Judicial change moves ahead,” March 12, 2014
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 ‘’Star Tribune,’’ “Judicial change moves ahead,” March 12, 2014, accessed March 18, 2014
- ↑ ‘’Star Tribune,’’ “The right-wing litmus test, part two: Judges,” February 28, 2014
- ↑ Clovis News Journal, "Curry County candidate filings for June 3 primary," March 11, 2014
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Clovis News Journal, "Several county judges not performing marriages," archived March 19, 2014
| |||||
