Public policy made simple. Dive into our information hub today!

JP Election Brief: Individual races and big picture questions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Judicial elections


August 30, 2012

by: the State Court Staff


Every Thursday, Judgepedia's State Court Staff examines 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.
Ballotpedia:Original Content project

In the News

North Carolina Supreme Court race

Highlightarace.jpg

New endorsements have been announced in North Carolina's biggest race: the race for Supreme Court. Incumbent Justice Paul Martin Newby has received the help of Civitas Action, a nonprofit conservative advocacy group, as well as the North Carolina Chamber's political action committee.

Civitas Action spent $72,000 on a statewide radio ad campaign for Justice Newby. The money came out of a $75,000 grant by the Judicial Crisis Network, located in Washington, D.C.[1]

The North Carolina Chamber PAC's endorsement is surprising because they usually don't endorse statewide candidates. According to the Chamber's chief executive, Lew Ebert, they are making an exception because of what he sees as Newby's reputation for impartiality and understanding of economic matters related to cases involving job creators.[2]

Such endorsements will surely prove helpful in Newby's campaign against appellate Judge Sam Ervin. Though the race is nonpartisan, Newby is a registered as a Republican, while Ervin is a Democrat.[2]

Ervin has been endorsed by a number of left-leaning groups, such as the AFL-CIO, the National Association of Social Workers, and the North Carolina Advocates for Justice.[3]

Arizona primary eliminates candidates in three races

Arizona

This Tuesday's primary in the Grand Canyon State narrowed candidates for the general election in only three races. Two of those occurred between Democratic candidates running for the Navajo County Superior Court. The third was for the Cochise County Superior Court.

For Division II in Navajo County, Judge Robert James Higgins defeated F. Morgan Brown. Higgins was appointed to the court by Governor Jan Brewer this February and is running to keep his seat. Higgins will face D. Shawn Taylor in the general election.

For Division III, incumbent Judge John Lamb defeated challenger Eduardo Coronado after a race filled with lawsuits and accusations. During the campaign, both candidates challenged their opponent's nominating petitions, claiming the signatures were invalid. Ultimately, all challenges were dropped before the primary.[4]

In Cochise County, Karl D. Elledge heartily defeated Roger H. Contreras in the primary. The two candidates also competed in the Republican primary for the Cochise County Superior Court in 2010. In that election, they lost to John F. Kelliher, Jr. who is still serving on the court.[5]

Washington study reveals election-related sentencing

Washington

According to an article to be published in a forthcoming issue of The Review of Economics and Statistics,[6] trial court judges in Washington state dole out sentences of increasing severity as they get closer to re-election.[7]

The study's authors, Carlos Berdejo and Noam Yuchtman, looked at data for over 275,000 cases, including violent and non-violent crimes; these cases involved 265 Washington Superior Court judges from the years 1995 to 2006. After taking into account defendants' criminal histories and whether cases went to trial or were resolved by plea bargain, "the authors identified a 10% increase in sentence length from the start of a judge's term to the election." This pattern was displayed for all crimes, but was concentrated among serious crimes. The authors also report a 50% increase in the imposition of sentences above the maximum recommended by official guidelines over the course of judges' terms.[8]

In contrast, judges who were retiring rather than running for re-election did not display this increase in the severity of sentencing over the course of their terms.[8]

According to the report, over 80% of the public feel that courts are "not harsh enough" on criminals.[7] These findings seem to indicate that elected judges are sensitive to political pressures and are willing to sentence criminals more severely as elections approach in an effort to court popularity with voters, whether consciously or unconsciously.[8]

Campaign contributions on the rise as candidates face off for the Twentieth Circuit Court

Illinois

Associate Judge Vincent J. Lopinot faces off against attorney Ronald R. Duebbert in the race for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court. While the days are winding down until the November 6 election, the candidates' campaign spending continues to rise.[9]

By June of this year Lopinot's campaign committee had raised a total of $75,775 with Duebbert's raising only $7,065. While Duebbert's campaign committee did not raise near the amount as his opponent's they still spent about $3,500 more than Lopinot's committee between April 1 and June 30.[9]

The majority of the candidates' contributions have come from local individuals and law offices.[9]

Texas redistricting maps discriminatory, says federal court

Texas

Though elections are moving forward in Texas, the hotly contested process of redistricting in the state is still under review by the courts. New districts approved by the Texas legislature in 2011 have already forced the rescheduling of election dates in the state this year. The primary was initially set for March 6, Super Tuesday, but challenges to the new maps pushed the date back first to April 3, and finally to May 29. The primary was only allowed to move forward through the creation of interim maps, drawn by the US District Court for the Western District of Texas under the order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which refused to clear the new districts.[10][11]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, the US District Court for the District of Columbia finally returned to the question of redistricting in Texas, eight months after arguments in the case were initially heard, and found that the maps created by the state were discriminatory and tended to favor white voters.[10] This ruling will not effect the November general election, as these maps are not currently in use. Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has already indicated his intention to appeal the decision, dragging out the redistricting fight even longer.

See also

Footnotes