judicial elections

In the post-Citizens United world, these billionaires have found a new way to attack a state law they don't like.
North Carolina's governor Pat McCrory has repeatedly used a form of political dishonesty that lacks a well-recognized label. Lacking such a label, this tactic often goes unnoticed and unaddressed. To remedy this, I suggest a precise and well-earned label: a "McCrory."
If ever there was reason to end judicial selection by election, one need look no further than Kansas. The G.O.P. is seeking to replace four supreme court justices because it is unhappy with their rulings.
At first glance, Lanell Williams-Yulee’s legal fight against the Florida Bar has an appealingly underdogish aura about it
It is one of the main responsibilities of States Parties to provide the Court with the tools to fulfill its mandate. This includes not only financial support but also nominating and electing supremely qualified judges.
We should end judicial elections entirely, but until we do, we must find a way to limit the corrupting influence of money in the election process and stop putting the judiciary up for sale.
The impact of money in state court elections is not limited to criminal cases. Studies show that -- consciously or unconsciously -- judges tend to rule in favor of the interests of their contributors.
"Since 1982, Alabama judges have overridden 95 verdicts sentencing defendants to death even though the jury voted for life
Some of the big spenders in judicial elections in 2012 included recognizable names from national political movements, such
Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In this case