Public funds for judicial campaigns

March 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Judicial elections and merit selection of judges is a hot topic in Indiana. Just take a look at bills or resolutions introduced in the General Assembly recently. You’ll see attempts to forego merit selection in favor of elections: 2009’s HEA 1491, which looked to make St. Joseph Superior judges run for election and made a brief comeback this year; and 2009’s House Joint Resolution 9 that aimed to have our justices elected. Both failed to become law.

But what if our justices and appellate judges were elected? Would you be willing to fork over your money – whether through taxes or other fees – to pay for a general election fund? West Virginia thinks it’s a good idea and has recently passed legislation that creates a public campaign financing pilot program. You may recall Caperton, et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal, 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009), came from West Virginia.

The legislation’s aim is to curb the perception that contributors and interested third-parties hold too much influence over the judicial process. Candidates in a primary election could receive $50,000 to $200,000 from the fund; they can get anywhere from $35,000 to $350,000 in a general election. The money was to come from fees from various court filings and new lawyer registration, but legislators amended it to strip that language so now money will have to come from a state surplus fund or private funds. You can read the legislation online. It’s set to become effective June 11.

West Virginia joins North Carolina, New Mexico, and Wisconsin as states that publicly fund judicial races. West Virginia only has one state appellate court.

Indiana is a hodgepodge of judicial selection processes – most counties elect their judges through partisan election, although a handful uses merit-selection or non-partisan elections. All of our appellate judges are chosen by merit selection.

The idea behind the public funds makes sense in attempting to eliminate perceived bias from judges who ran for the bench politically, but it also raises plenty of questions. Should states be funding judicial elections in this economy? What if a state is set up like ours – appellate judges are appointed but trial judges run for election – should lower court candidates also receive funds? What if there isn’t enough money in the public fund for candidates? They will have to raise their own money again, and that defeats the purpose of the bill.

If Indiana ever went the judicial election route for our appellate judges and justices, would you like to see the state create a campaign finance fund?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  2. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  3. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  4. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

  5. Mr. Foltz: Your comment that the ACLU is "one of the most wicked and evil organizations in existence today" clearly shows you have no real understanding of what the ACLU does for Americans. The fact that the state is paying out so much in legal fees to the ACLU is clear evidence the ACLU is doing something right, defending all of us from laws that are unconstitutional. The ACLU is the single largest advocacy group for the US Constitution. Every single citizen of the United States owes some level of debt to the ACLU for defending our rights.

ADVERTISEMENT