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.
Issue Brief A lawsuit alleges that State Farm secretly spent millions of dollars to help elect an Illinois Supreme Court justice who would later overturn a huge verdict entered against the insurance giant.
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.
Report This compilation of recent reports describes the distorting influence of campaign cash and suggests policy solutions to mitigate these problems.
Issue Brief Billy Corriher looks at the judges who won elections in 2012 while raising roughly $1 million or more, as well as those who had more than $1 million spent on their behalf by independent groups.
Issue Brief Public financing programs can drastically limit the opportunity for lawyers, corporations, or others to influence the law through campaign contributions, and can make smaller donors more important to the process.
Issue Brief Mandatory recusal rules would go a long way toward ensuring citizens that judges and by extension, justices, can be bought.
The explosion of campaign cash in judicial elections has led citizens to doubt whether judges can be impartial.
A CAP Action report explains why merit-selection systems and retention elections are a good way to keep judges free from politicization of elections.
Issue Brief Reasonable minds can differ over whether to elect judges, but it is clear that electing judges in partisan elections leads to a myriad of problems.