Keeping courts impartial amid changing judicial elections

That’s obscene for a judicial race. . . . What does it gain people? How can people have faith in the system?

–Justice Lloyd Karmeier, Illinois Supreme Court, Election Night 20041

More than 89 percent of America’s state judges must stand for election to sit on the bench or retain office.2 Judicial contests have traditionally been different from other elections because judges historically haven’t had to raise huge war chests, cater to interest groups, make sound-bite promises, or respond to hardball attacks. Judicial election politics have stayed cooler in part because Americans don’t want courtroom decisions to be influenced by political pressure.

But Justice Karmeier’s race encapsulates a troubling transformation. He issued his warning after winning the most expensive contested judicial election in American history. In a rural district, the two candidates raised more than $9.3 million–more than was raised in eighteen out of thirty-four U.S. Senate races that year. Trial lawyers wrote six-figure checks to the state Democratic Party and teamed up with labor leaders to funnel money into the race through a political action committee. On the other side, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association poured in millions more through the state Republicans, the state Chamber, and a friendly political action committee.3 .  .  .