Judicial Elections

April 24, 2009 • Volume 19, Issue 16
Are races for judgeships bad for justice?
By Kenneth Jost

Introduction

West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin (AP Photo/Bob Bird)
West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin is part of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case focusing on whether judges must recuse themselves in cases involving campaign contributions or spending by someone with a stake in the outcome. (AP Photo/Bob Bird)

The United States is the only country in the world that requires most judges to face popular elections to gain or hold office. Today, as in the past, most judicial elections attract little attention. Over the past three decades, however, political parties and interest groups have spent millions of dollars on targeted races for state supreme courts in order to change the tribunals' political or ideological composition. Business groups succeeded in recent elections in West Virginia and Wisconsin in backing candidates who defeated incumbent justices and tilted the courts toward business interests. Defenders of judicial elections say they help make sure courts are accountable and responsive to the public. Critics say the special-interest funding and misleading campaign tactics of many judicial campaigns threaten the integrity of the justice system. Proposals for change, however, are making little headway. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to require judges to bow out of cases involving major campaign supporters.

ISSUE TRACKER for Related Reports
Elections
Nov. 04, 2016  The Obama Legacy
Oct. 29, 2010  Democrats' Future
Apr. 24, 2009  Judicial Elections
May 30, 2008  Changing U.S. Electorate Updated
Mar. 12, 2004  Redistricting Disputes
Nov. 02, 2001  Election Reform
Oct. 20, 2000  Low Voter Turnout
BROWSE RELATED TOPICS:
Legal Professions and Resources