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
WASHINGTON -- Outside interest groups spent at record levels in state-level judicial elections in the 2012 election cycle
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
Leaving her mother in charge of a son with cerebral palsy, Camilla Clifton headed to the Cook County criminal courthouse to support her nephew, on trial in 2009 for an attempted murder she believed he did not commit. Clifton would not see her family again for three days.
On Thursday night, the North Carolina House gave final approval to an anti-democracy elections overhaul bill that makes it harder to vote, allows more money into the political system, and repeals the state's public financing laws.
If the program is eliminated, supporters say that business interests and attorneys arguing cases before judges will become
Do we want conscientious, smart judges or ones elected based on party affiliation? Until Illinois ends partisan judicial elections, moving to merit-based nominations and appointments, the state will lack qualified judges that we deserve.
Judicial races are under-the-radar for most of us, but not for industries likely to go before the judges in the future. So, what do we want? Well, we want political contests that lead to an absence of politics in the courtroom. Are we are kidding ourselves?
This is a crisis that has long murmurings in our political culture, but one that the LGBT rights movement has brought to a nasty and shameful head. The crisis: a threat to judicial independence.
Judges who allow the burning of the American flag, allow Nazis to march, protect the rights of those charged with crimes and even those found guilty and uphold gay and lesbian rights should be revered for their courage and integrity, not punished.
In this era of political gridlock and unsolved problems, true bipartisan achievements are rare and warrant celebration. Which is why Michiganians should embrace the sweeping recommendations of the Judicial Selection Task Force.
If there were contested general elections in every political race, there would be no talk of mandatory term limits because the voters would have a greater ability to vote out of office those who did not deserve to be there.