Thoughts after the Primary Election
In the run up to yesterday’s primary race, Appellate Justice Aurelia Pucinski was a vocal critic of the role of campaign financing in judicial elections. Judge Pucinski was particularly critical (audio link, relevant portion at the -1:20 mark) of the role of PAC money and money from donors and organizations with little or no connection to state of Illinois. Campaign contributions in the Supreme Court primary this year reached 1.6 million dollars. Self-described “long-shot candidate” Thomas Flannigan was alone in accepting no campaign contributions in the primary race. Judge Pucinski did not win yesterday’s primary race; current Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis did. In the interests of full disclosure, Justice Theis received a “Highly Qualified” recommendation from our partner organization, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, but Judge Pucinski did not.
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice has long been an advocate for judicial election reform and supports public financing for judicial campaigns (.pdf link). Public financing of judicial campaigns levels the playing field for qualified candidates and eliminates barriers for judicial candidates without a political affiliation. It relieves judges of the conflicts created by soliciting contributions from parties and organizations who may appear in their courtrooms. Public financing also fosters public confidence in the impartiality of judicial candidates and focuses electioneering on prior judicial performance and qualifications rather than hot-button issues.
Public opinion polls from the early 2000’s show that more than 70% of Americans feel judges are beholden to the parties who donate money to their campaigns and that campaign contributions influence courtroom outcomes. In a 2002 poll, 46% of state court judges themselves agreed, believing that campaign contributions have at least a little influence on courtroom decisions. As spending in elections continues to rise, public confidence in the judiciary will almost certainly continue to decline.
Campaign financing, campaign contributions, and campaign spending all degrade public confidence in the judiciary and the impartiality of judges and justices because judicial officers are meant to be beholden to the law, not constituencies.
To combat this, in 2002, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates adopted a resolution urging states that elect judges to consider public financing of judicial campaigns, based upon a report of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (.pdf). Like the ABA, the Brennan Center, Justice at Stake and the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform also support public financing for judicial elections. Chicago Appleseed is in good company suggesting that Illinois adopt public financing for judicial campaigns.
As we have often remarked, public confidence in the judiciary arises from judicial excellence, judicial independence and judicial impartiality. Ensuring impartiality and independence in a jurisdiction with elected judges can be problematic, particularly as campaigns raise and spend ever larger amounts. Poll results reported by the American Judicature Society in 2002 show that in Illinois more than 85% of voters believed campaign contributions influence judicial decisions. Three out of four voters favored limits on campaign contributions to judicial candidates, and over 60% supported a voluntary system of public financing of judicial campaigns. Chicago Appleseed also advocates for public financing of judicial elections. In a 2003 report on judicial reform, we examined the process of judicial elections in Cook County, and our research found that judicial fundraising in Cook County increased from an average of $7,400 in 1988 to more than $30,000 in the 1998 subcircuit election.
More recent research by other groups demonstrates that campaign spending in judicial elections continues to rise. For instance, a 2010 study by the Brennan Center reported that non-candidate spending in state high court elections nearly doubled as a share of total costs, compared to the previous off-year election, including “a flood of non-candidate TV advertising, making this the costliest non-presidential election cycle ever for TV spending in judicial elections.” The report also showed that nearly one-third of all funds spent on state high court elections came from non-candidate groups ($11.5 million out of $38 million in 2009-10) and that nearly 40 percent of all funds spent on state high court races came from just 10 groups, including national special interest groups and political parties. It is extremely troubling that so much money funding judicial elections comes from national organizations, when state judicial officers are bound not only to uphold state and local law, but also to rule from the standards of the communities where they sit.
Illinois should seriously consider preserving the integrity of its judiciary by adopting a system of public financing for judicial races, particularly at the Supreme Court and Appellate Court levels.