« Ind. Courts - "Indiana Right to Life Urges Voters To Vote No On All Judicial Retention Questions" | Main | Courts - More on Running for Judge in Kentucky »

Friday, October 27, 2006

Courts - Roll Call Newspaper on state supreme court races

Louis Jacobson, Deputy Editor of Rollcall, writes: "Here's my latest Out There column -- a roundup of state supreme court races, which are a big target for pro-business interest groups." Here is the column, dated Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006 and headed "Business Groups Spend Freely, Gain Ground in Judicial Contests." (Indiana is not mentioned, as there are not contested appellate judicial races here, but rather retention elections.)

In recent years, state courts have become hotly contested turf for powerful national interests. Business groups and trial lawyers have fought over curbing legal liability and government regulation, while pro-business conservatives have battled religious conservatives.

This year, 16 states will hold Supreme Court elections, and five of them — Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Texas — will see the majority of their high court seats up for public approval.

Through Oct. 22, total spending for primaries and general election races nationwide has been $8.3 million. Of this total, Alabama’s contests have accounted for $4.2 million, followed by Washington state elections (a little more than $1 million) and Ohio (just under $1 million), according to New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and the Justice at Stake Campaign.

These figures are up slightly from the amounts spent through this point in 2004, but the final totals — which won’t be available until well after Election Day — may not set a new record. That’s because the 2004 contests included an unusually hard-fought race in Illinois that ended up costing $6.8 million.

Still, several states are on a pace to set new one-cycle spending records. Moreover, spending on advertising for primary contests reached $3.5 million this cycle — up from $96,000 just four years ago.

Outside interest groups have been funding the advertising that drives these races in ever-larger amounts. While interest groups have been deeply involved in judicial races for several cycles, their share of money spent — compared to candidates and parties — is increasing.

Of the total amount spent through Oct. 22, 55 percent has been funded by candidates and 45 percent was spent by what the Brennan Center classifies as “special interests.” That’s up from 30 percent in the full 2004 cycle. Parties have spent less than 1 percent.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington are all outpacing spending on television advertising from this time in the 2004 campaign cycle.

“At this point, I would have to characterize the vast majority of spending as coming from the business community,” said Jesse Rutledge, a spokesman for Justice at Stake, which is funded by the Carnegie Corporation, the Joyce Foundation, the Open Society Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation.

“It’s been an interesting dynamic to watch unfold. We’ve seen a gradual shift away from a fairly vigorous and balanced back-and-forth between business on one side and trial lawyers and unions on the other,” Rutledge said. “Now we’re seeing a growing disparity, with business rapidly outspending trial lawyers.”

Larry Akey — the executive director for communications with the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform — said his group “will spend somewhat north of $15 million” on a combination of state Supreme Court races and state attorney general campaigns. But the group, as in the past, will not say publicly which states or races it is entering — and that information is not easy to find. Most states have few disclosure requirements for funding in judicial races.

According to the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake, some of the leading business spenders so far have been the American Taxpayers Alliance, which spent almost $1 million in Alabama; the Partnership for Ohio’s Future, which spent almost $770,000; It’s Time for a Change, which spent about $465,000 in Washington; and Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, which spent roughly $362,000 in Washington. These opaquely named groups have ties to Chamber of Commerce affiliates, the building industry and other pro-tort-reform organizations.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America did not return a telephone call, but one liberal activist said that on the left, “money is tight everywhere, especially for national organizations that are spread thin on so many important candidate races this cycle.”

Another reason may be that business groups have done so well in recent years. The Institute for Legal Reform got involved in 13 judicial races in 2004 and won 12 of them. That’s roughly on par with the institute’s win-loss record since 2000, which is 80 percent to 90 percent.

In states such as Alabama and Ohio, prior judicial campaigns already succeeded in tilting the courts heavily toward conservatives. Given this reality, Rutledge suggested, funding a rear-guard action to preserve a liberal judge or two becomes a less-attractive way to spend scarce resources.

Probably the most notable example of liberal activism this year came in Washington state, where labor unions, environmental groups, Indian tribes and trial lawyers aligned with Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) to form Citizens to Uphold the Constitution. This group spent almost $230,000 to help boost an endangered incumbent, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. Alexander survived a primary against attorney John Groen.

Fundraising by candidates is also up this year. Of the states with contested Supreme Court elections, four have already broken aggregate candidate fundraising records — Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Washington.

In Illinois, the opposing candidates for an appellate court judgeship have already set a record for fundraising below the Supreme Court level. GOP incumbent Steve McGlynn has raised $1.2 million, and Democratic challenger Bruce Stewart has raised $600,000.

Just about the only roadblock for pro-business groups is a rough political environment for their allies in the GOP. “I think we’ve been successful in identifying opportunities and protecting our gains, but there are a lot of dynamics in the air this fall, and we have to see how they’re going to play out,” said Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, who remains optimistic.

Here is a rundown of key state Supreme Court elections:

Alabama. In a contentious GOP primary between social conservatives and pragmatic conservatives, Chief Justice Drayton Nabers held off a stiff challenge from social conservative Tom Parker, a fellow Supreme Court justice. Now, however, Nabers faces an unexpectedly tough challenge from Democrat Sue Bell Cobb, a judge on the state Court of Criminal Appeals. Though Nabers spent freely in his primary race, Cobb has outspent him 2-to-1 since Sept. 15.

Political action committees linked to tort-reform groups have given generously to Nabers, while law firms and teachers unions have given significantly to Cobb.

“I expect this campaign to be the most expensive in the country when all is said and done,” Rutledge said.

Three other incumbents on the Supreme Court face competition in the general election.

Georgia. The marquee race in the Peach State pits incumbent Justice Carol Hunstein and challenger Mike Wiggins.

Hunstein was named to the Supreme Court in 1992 by then-Gov. Zell Miller (D). Hunstein’s campaign Web site cites an ideologically diverse array of supporters, from liberal Rep. John Lewis (D) and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin to conservatives Miller and former state Attorney General Mike Bowers (R).

Wiggins was most recently a Bush administration appointee at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.

Kentucky. Almost all of the state’s circuit, district and appellate judgeships will be up for election this year, including five of the seven Supreme Court seats. The state judicial fundraising record has already fallen, and the allegations are becoming nasty.

The most-watched contest pits incumbent Justice John Roach against Circuit Judge Mary Noble. Roach was appointed by Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R). The Noble camp has attacked what it calls a push poll that may have suggested to respondents that Noble is a lesbian because she has been married for 38 years without any children. And Roach’s ties to Fletcher, who has faced a widening state-hiring scandal, have drawn fire.

In another Supreme Court contest, Justice William McAnulty will have to defend his seat after being appointed this summer as the first black justice on the court. He faces Judge Ann O’Malley Shake, who would become the only woman on the court. McAnulty narrowly defeated Shake in the nonpartisan primary.

Washington. Justice Susan Owens won 46 percent in a five-way primary — short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff — and now must face the second-place finisher, state Sen. Stephen Johnson (R), who got 35 percent.

As with the Alexander-Groen primary, this one is expected to be a battle between the building industry and a left-of-center alliance. But gay rights, stem-cell research and the minimum wage have also come up in the campaign.

Nevada. Incumbent Justice Nancy Becker is being challenged by District Court Judge Nancy Saitta. Advertisements by Nevadans Against Judicial Activists have attacked Becker’s support for a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Legislature to raise taxes.

Ohio. Incumbent Justice Terrence O’Donnell (R) faces Judge William O’Neill (D), who has made an issue of O’Donnell’s acceptance of money and support from business interests. In a lower-profile race, Democratic attorney Ben Espy and Republican appeals Judge Robert Cupp will face off for an open seat.

Oregon. Court of Appeals Judge Virginia Linder faces former Lane County Commissioner, state labor commissioner and frequent Republican candidate Jack Roberts in the first open-seat race for the Supreme Court in six years. Though Linder has key Democratic endorsements in this Democratic-leaning state, Roberts has taken an early lead in fundraising.

Texas. Five of the nine seats on the state’s highest (and Republican-dominated) court for civil cases are up this fall. The only contest with both a Democrat and a Republican running has incumbent Justice Don Willett (R) facing District Judge Bill Moody (D).

North Carolina. A majority of Supreme Court seats will be up for grabs on Election Day. Chief Justice Sarah Parker and associate justices Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Mark Martin will defend their seats, while Court of Appeals judges Robin Hudson and Ann Marie Calabria vie for an open seat.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 27, 2006 01:34 PM
Posted to Courts in general