JP Election Brief: Party switches and the soaring cost of campaigning

The JP Election Brief
Pulling back the curtain on the drama of judicial elections
In this issue...
Election news from: North Carolina, Illinois, Florida,  New Mexico, Ohio and Louisiana

September 11, 2014

by: State Courts Staff

Two opponents in North Carolina both switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Experts discuss the reason behind the expensive judicial campaigns in certain Illinois counties, and propose possible solutions. The Florida Bar gives high ratings to appellate court judges standing for retention this year, and a New Mexican judge drops out of the race to retire. Name recognition becomes news in another Ohio race, and many incumbents in a Louisiana district courts will face challengers in November.

Important dates: Nominations: 9/23: New York: Nomination of supreme court candidates

Candidates switch political parties though race is nonpartisan

North Carolina:

Two North Carolina judicial candidates vying for the same seat have had a change of heart about their political allegiance - and switched parties.

Judge Sherry Prince

Willie Fred Gore and Sherry D. Prince are both running for an open seat on the North Carolina 13th Judicial District. Though North Carolina judicial elections are nonpartisan, both candidates chose to publicly change their political affiliations in the middle of the campaign from Democrat to Republican.

Gore formally switched his party to Republican on August 15. He did so, he says, because he is "a conservative at heart" and his conscience demanded it. He cited his time in the National Guard and working for Brunswick County District Attorney Jon David, a member of the GOP, as being influential in his decision.

Willie Fred Gore

His opponent, Prince, is the incumbent and was appointed to the bench by Democratic governor Bev Perdue. Prince is also a former Columbus County Democratic Party chair. When asked why she made the switch, Prince said that she was "deeply troubled by the current Federal administration's deviation from the policies and practices with which I had always been comfortable as a moderate Democrat." She went on to state that she has re-examined her personal beliefs and philosophies and find that they are better in line with the Republican platform. Current Democratic Party chair Leonard Jenkins said that Prince did not discuss her switch with the party before making it.

In an official statement, Prince was quick to assure voters that her political party has nothing to do with her job as a judge. She said she will uphold the law and support all who appear in her courtroom regardless of political party. She ended her official statement with the following: "As a candidate for re-election in a nonpartisan race, I seek the support and vote of Republicans, Democrats and Unaffiliated voters alike."

Experts debate solutions to high campaign costs in Illinois counties

Illinois:

According to the Madison-St. Clair Record, the price tag on a judicial campaign in Madison and Bond County, Illinois can range from five to 20 times more than in comparable judicial circuits in the state. An analysis provided by the Madison-St. Clair Record of the campaign contributions of ten judges from the years 2004 through 2012 within the Fifth Circuit reveals that at least $1,032,039 was collectively raised in contributions. For comparison, an analysis of the campaign contributions raised by thirteen judges from the Sixth Circuit amounted to $44,665. The newspaper cites the figures as records obtained from the Illinois State Board of Elections.

One possible cause of the discrepancy in campaign fund size could be civil litigation. Madison County is, as of 2014, the main docket for asbestos related cases in the nation. Prior to the passing of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005, the county served as a national hub for class action filings, ranking only below Los Angeles and Cook Counties in terms of case load.

There are critics of the way judicial campaign financing is conducted in Illinois. One debated issue revolves around the question of whether it should be allowed for a lawyer to contribute to a judge's campaign that the lawyer might end up practicing in front of. David Yepsen, who serves as director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, takes a critical view of this practice. He states that this arrangement, "may be quite legal but they look bad." He points out that this kind of contribution serves to undermine the trust citizens place in courts. Further, he argues that rising costs of all campaigns, not limited to judicial elections, prevents many candidates from participating.

Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, offers three approaches that he believes will alleviate the problems arising from high campaign costs. First, he suggests changing the dates of judicial elections to be conducted along with municipal and school elections rather than in November. Another possible solution he advocates is a bi-partisan screening process involving both lawyers and non-lawyers. This would result in more thorough and expert reviews of judicial candidates on the ballot. Thirdly, he offers the idea to publicly finance judicial elections combined with an approval screening process. These potential solutions, Murnane believes, could be beneficial to the judicial selection system in the state. Under current campaign finance law, Murnane notes that there are no limits on campaign contributions.

Whether these proposed solutions would be effective or not will likely remain unknown. Murnane comments, "There are solutions but there is no willingness to correct this problem in Madison County and in several other counties in Illinois."

Florida Bar poll gives voters insight into judicial elections

Florida:

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.

Florida voters who want to learn more about the state's upcoming judicial merit retention elections will once again be able to benefit from knowing the opinions of the state's attorneys, and it appears that sitting judges have the approval of the vast majority of Florida's legal community.

As it has done every alternate year since 1978, the Florida Bar conducted a poll of its membership and published the results, along with a voter information guide (published in Spanish and English) that seeks to help Floridians understand the judicial elections process, the importance of participation, and the role that judges fulfill in civil society. This year, voters will decide whether or not 22 appellate court judges should retain their seats.

The poll, which is conducted by mail, surveys Florida Bar members of good standing and asks participants to indicate whether judges should be retained or not, using a scale of eight attributes to make their decision. Attributes include: quality and clarity of opinions, knowledge of the law, integrity, judicial temperament, impartiality, freedom from bias-prejudice, demeanor, and courtesy.

The results, published in early September, demonstrate strong support for all judges currently up for retention among Florida Bar members with an average rating of 88 percent. "Most Florida citizens do not have reason to be in our appeals courts..." said Florida Bar President Gregory W. Coleman, "[i]t can be difficult for them to assess judicial performance." The results of the poll give Florida voters "an excellent resource" for determining how judges are evaluated by the people who deal with them most, says Coleman.

Coleman credited Florida's judicial selection process for the high approval rate, which uses nominating commissions to make recommendations to the governor for judicial appointments. The election will be held as part of the general election on November 4th.

Judge drops out of New Mexico race

New Mexico:

Judge Camille Martinez Olguin

Judge Camille E. Olguin, of New Mexico’s Thirteenth Judicial District, was on her way to retention to a new term. She would appear on the ballot unopposed, along with a “yes” or “no” option for voters to decided for or against her re-election. However, with about two months to go until the election, Olguin decided to retire instead.

Olguin informed the Secretary of State’s office, removing herself from the ballot. That left an opening that will be filled by election on November 4. The Democratic Party nominated Randolph “Randy” Collins to run for Olguin’s seat. The Republican Party seemed to have missed their window for nomination, so Collins is likely to run unopposed.

New Mexico’s 13th Judicial District

Collins, regarding his nomination, state:

“

I am honored to have been selected by the Democratic Party for this important position. I am thankful to have been serving as Chief Judge for the Pueblo of Acoma and prior to that, as deputy District Attorney for the 13th Judicial District in Cibola County.

”

The 13th Judicial District covers the counties of Cibola, Sandoval and Valencia.

Two influential names square off in Cuyahoga County election

Ohio:

As voters in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, visit the polls this November 4, most will take heed of the races near the top of the ballot, ticking the boxes for U.S. senator, governor and attorney general. But in a process known as "voter falloff," they may neglect to submit an opinion for offices near the bottom—offices like the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas or any of the other 59 judgeships county residents can weigh in on this year.

Two factors often drive results in such races: party affiliation and name recognition. In a state like Ohio where party affiliation of judicial candidates does not appear on the general election ballot, name recognition weighs heavily. So what's a voter to do when asked to decide between Matthew A. McMonagle, described by court watcher Brent Larkin as "judicial royalty," and Shannon M. Gallagher, whose surname has won more Ohio judicial elections in recent years than any other?

“	What makes the Gallagher-McMonagle matchup so compelling is that, with so many judgeships available, rare is the case where two candidates with such tremendous ballot names square off in a general election. In this one, however, Gallagher entered the race knowing full well her opponent would be a McMonagle.	”
—Brent Larkin

The McMonagles have a long history of court service. Matthew McMonagle, while not a court of common pleas incumbent, is running to replace his father Richard J. McMonagle, who is barred from seeking re-election by the mandatory retirement age. His father was the fifth family member to serve as a common pleas judge.

Whatever advantage Matthew's name gives him, however, may be negated by the popularity of Gallagher's surname in other local courts. Five Gallaghers currently serve on Ohio courts, three of whom populate the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals.

Gallagher, while aware of her influential name, believes this race is an "ideal" matchup because "no one receives a benefit that the other does not." But McMonagle mused that while he is proud of his family history, a merit-based selection system might yield a healthier judiciary. "If you take the names out of it and go on experience alone, I don’t think this is a close call," he commented.

Sites like Judge4Yourself.com aim to better inform voters by compiling ratings from relevant bar associations. The site rated Gallagher and McMonagle a 2.25 and 3.0, respectively.

Lots of challengers in Louisiana's 19th District

Louisiana: Fourteen of the fifteen judges in the 19th Judicial District are running for re-election this year. Judge Kay Bates, who is retiring at the end of her term, is the exception. There are five candidates hoping to fill her spot. As for the judges running for another term, eight incumbents are unopposed, and therefore automatically re-elected. Six of the current judges, however, are being challenged for their positions.

There are a total of eight candidates going up against incumbents. The incumbents longevity in office doesn't seem to be a deterrent to challengers either. Many of the incumbents have held their seats since the '90s.

Judge Bonnie Jackson was first elected to the court in 1992. She will face Nina S. Hunter and Tiffany Foxworth. Richard Anderson, a judge since 1996, has drawn one opponent in Joyce Plummer. Trae Welch is going up against Chief Judge Mike Erwin, who has been on the court for 24 years. Judge Michael Caldwell joined the court in 1997, and will face Randy Piedrahita this November.

Judge Todd Hernandez was elected to the district court in 2001. Colette M. Greggs will be his opponent. Judge Trudy White is fairly new to the bench - she was elected in 2008, and took office in January 2009. She is facing two opponents, Gideon T. Carter III and Alfred C. Williams.

19th Judicial District, Louisiana

The unopposed incumbents who are automatically elected without appearing on the ballot are:

• Donald Johnson
• Janice Clark
• Wilson Fields
• Richard Moore III
• Louis Daniel
• William Morvant
• Tim Kelley
• Anthony Marabella

The voters of East Baton Rouge Parish have a lot of judicial candidates to get to know before making their decisions on election day, November 4.

See also

• Judgepedia's Election Central
• 2014 judicial election dates