Billy Corriher writes that officials in Alabama are essentially arguing that the Constitution does not apply in their state.
Video This new minidocumentary from Legal Progress showcases the real human impact of special interest money that is infiltrating judicial elections by featuring one North Carolina family’s story of how coal ash pollution poisoned their community.
Most states ban the personal solicitation of campaign cash, but the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether these laws violate judicial candidates’ free speech rights.
Spending on judicial elections reached $15 million in 2014—a record for a midterm election—fueled by money from attorneys and corporate litigants.
Report A troubling correlation between judicial campaign contributions and success rates for law firms underscores the need to restore the state’s public financing of judicial candidates.
Fact Sheet The repeal of public financing for judicial candidates could give corporate polluters and other donors more influence in North Carolina courts.
Report Big-money groups in Washington want to protect state legislatures’ agendas from legal challenges.
Issue Brief Judges and legislators fail to address the conflicts of interest inherent in multimillion-dollar judicial elections.
Interactive A CAP analysis finds that states have failed to strengthen their judicial ethics rules to address the growth in campaign cash.
The ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC will give the wealthiest 1 percent even more influence over politicians, including elected judges.
Issue Brief When judges rule in favor of students seeking a better education, they risk incurring the wrath of conservative legislators with an austerity agenda.
Report New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is engaged in an unprecedented effort to pack the state supreme court with justices who will rule the way he wants.
Report The findings of a new CAP analysis show that as campaign cash increased, the courts studied began to rule more often in favor of prosecutors and against criminal defendants.
Proposed changes to North Carolina’s judicial election code would weaken judicial-oversight rules and allow more money into campaigns, which have the potential to seriously undermine citizens’ perceptions of their justice system.