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.
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 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.
Report This month a task force recommended that Wisconsin justices be limited to a single 16-year term.
With his recent comparison of affirmative action to slavery, Justice Clarence Thomas appears determined to undo the civil-rights and equal-justice accomplishments of his predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Issue Brief The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder means that courts will play an even more important role in protecting the right to vote.
Recent polling results indicate that the vast majority of voters want to eliminate the influence of campaign cash in judicial elections.
Report An analysis of state supreme court rulings shows that an influx of corporate campaign cash is influencing judges to rule against those injured while on the job or by business entities such as hospitals.
Using a front group, the NRA has spent millions of dollars to influence the elections of state supreme court judges and attorneys general nationwide.