U.S. Supreme Court Rules Money in Judicial Elections Does Matter

Over the past decade, judicial elections have spiraled out of control with multi-million dollar war chests and salacious advertising. One danger of this trend is that the public increasingly believes that judges are just politicians in robes.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a landmark decision in Caperton v. Massey, ruling that judges must recuse themselves from cases involving major campaign contributors. This case can serve as a catalyst for states interested in transitioning from over-politicized judicial elections to merit-based appointment. Rather than debating the amount that might trigger a need to recuse, we hope that states will instead look to changing their systems entirely.

In West Virginia, the state at the center of Caperton v. Massey, the governor has appointed an Independent Commission on Judicial Reform. The Commission is tasked with evaluating the current judicial system, its practices and possible areas of reform, such as implementing judicial campaign finance regulations or adopting merit selection.

The Nevada legislature passed a bill that would create an appointment and retention election system for judges statewide; it will go before voters in November 2010. Minnesota also has legislation under consideration that would implement a judicial performance evaluation commission and retention elections.

While Caperton v. Massey has created momentum toward reform of judicial selection systems, Tennessee and Missouri are fighting against efforts to eliminate current merit selection programs.

The debate over how we choose our judges is now on our nation's front burner as evidenced by tremendous media interest in Caperton v. Massey and increasing dialogue among decision-makers. The Institute remains committed to this critical issue; we will continue to work with policy-makers and to educate the public through speeches, op-eds and publications.

Reform of Unwieldy Civil Justice System Focus of IAALS Initiatives

Following a wave of interest in the Final Report on the Joint Project of the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) Task Force on Discovery and IAALS, the two groups are working together to create a set of proposed Rules of Civil Procedure that would implement the Principles outlined in the Report. IAALS will then work with interested jurisdictions to pilot the Rules and measure their effects.

IAALS is also undertaking a series of studies to quantify issues of cost and delay in our civil justice system. We will collect information about the cost of litigation from businesses and insurance companies, in order to quantify the actual costs of civil litigation from a corporate perspective. IAALS will also conduct a survey of in-house counsel to address issues of our civil justice system, ranging from the impact of electronic discovery to the role of alternative dispute resolution. Finally, we will survey judges and practicing lawyers in several states to gauge their opinions about procedural Rules specific to their jurisdictions, as well as conduct focus groups with judges nationwide to obtain their views on our system.

 

IAALS Series Provides Forum for Energetic Debate

Later this summer, IAALS will bring together esteemed thought leaders, including judges, lawyers, policy-makers and academics, to discuss the most important issues facing America's civil justice system. We will launch the series with a session on "E-discovery: In Search of the Smoking Gun." The IAALS Leadership Series: Debating Tomorrow's Legal Issues Today will consist of a quarterly forum that will provide a platform for constructive dialogue about the problems and opportunities facing our system of justice.

 

The Institute is creating a comprehensive website on the history of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ongoing efforts to reform our system of justice. Watch for its official launch this summer.