Selection Snapshots is a monthly newsletter published by the Quality Judges Initiative of IAALS, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. It provides an overview of judicial selection-related developments across the country. We hope you will enjoy it and will share it with others who might be interested. You can access past entries and issues of the newsletter here.

Alabama

Recent polling indicates that the chief justice race between Judge Robert Vance Jr. and Roy Moore is a dead heat, a somewhat surprising turn of events given that Vance did not enter the race as the Democratic candidate until September. Since then, Vance has raised $500,000 and received endorsements from two prominent Alabama Republicans. Moore was removed as chief justice in 2003 for ignoring a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, but in March, he won a three-way Republican primary that included the sitting chief justice.

Four justices who served with former chief justice Roy Moore are among 10 current and former justices of both parties who have endorsed his opponent in Moore's bid to be chief justice again.

Arizona

Conservative groups have mounted a loosely organized effort to oppose the retention of Justice John Pelander because of his vote in a 3-2 ruling that allows Proposition 121 to appear on the November ballot. The measure would institute open primary elections, where all candidates run against each other regardless of party affiliation and the top two vote-getters compete in the general election. Governor Brewer opposes Proposition 121 but supports the retention of Pelander, whom she appointed to the court in 2009. This is the first active effort to oppose a justice's retention since the process was adopted in 1978.

Justice John Pelander has taken the unusual step of forming a campaign committee to support his retention, in the face of opposition from conservative groups based on a recent decision. Two attorneys have also formed an independent expenditure committee, known as Save Our Judges, to defend Pelander.

Florida

According to campaign finance filings, the group formed to support the retention of three justices on the November ballot—Defend Justice from Politics—has raised and spent $1.45 million. The justices themselves have raised $1.36 million.

While lawyers who support the three justices standing for retention have raised $4 million in the justices' defense, opponents have spent less than anticipated. Americans for Prosperity has put only $50,000 into two days of TV ads and spent a total of $155,000. The Republican Party, which formally opposes retention, has not put any money into the effort.

In addition to casting ballots on the retention of appellate justices and judges, voters in November will decide whether to require senate confirmation of supreme court appointments. The proposed constitutional amendment known as Amendment 5 needs 60 percent approval to pass.

Hawaii

Data collected by the judicial selection commission indicates that interest in applying for a state court judgeship has declined over the years. The most striking example of this is that, while 24 attorneys applied for a supreme court vacancy in 2003, only seven did so in 2011 and only nine applied in 2012. The commission submits the names of four to six applicants to the governor for each supreme court vacancy.

Illinois

A grassroots organization known as Citizens for Judicial Integrity is campaigning against the retention of four Madison County judges. According to the CFJI website, the judges were elected with "huge contributions from judges and asbestos law firms" and are "responsible for a lawsuit explosion." The anti-retention effort is endorsed by the state chamber. One of the challenged judges has launched TV ads in support of her retention.

A website—VoteForJudges.org—is providing Cook County voters with nonpartisan judicial recommendations from area bar groups. The website was established in 2004 by the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and executive director Malcolm Rich suggests that "[v]oters spending 10 to 15 minutes on the website will get a fairly good idea of the candidates." Fifty-seven Cook County judges are standing for retention this November.

Indiana

Critics of Justice Stephen David's majority opinion in a 2011 Fourth Amendment case are challenging his bid for retention. The decision rejected the "Your home is your castle" doctrine as a defense to violent acts against law enforcement personnel. Justice Robert Rucker is also standing for retention, but he dissented in the case. In a poll of state bar members, more than 80 percent recommended the retention of Justices David and Rucker, as well as the four court of appeals judges on the ballot.

Justice Stephen David has opted to actively campaign for his retention, in response to a Tea Party-based challenge motivated by his participation in a 2011 decision. According to Justice David's campaign website, judges "don't have the luxury of taking a poll to find out which way they should rule on thorny issues" but must rule based on the facts and the law.

Iowa

According to a recent poll, 43 percent of Iowans would vote "no" on Justice David Wiggins' retention, while 37 percent would vote "yes." Positions on Justice Wiggins have a partisan undertone, with 65 percent of Republicans hoping to defeat him and 59 percent of Democrats wanting to retain him. In 2009, Justice Wiggins joined a unanimous supreme court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

Kansas

Governor Brownback's chief counsel is among 21 applicants for a court of appeals vacancy. After screening and interviewing the applicants, the nominating commission will identify three candidates from which the governor must choose. Brownback and many conservative legislators support changing the process for selecting appellate judges by eliminating the nominating commission and requiring senate confirmation, and the legislature is expected to take up the issue in 2013.

Kentucky

Although fundraising has not reached the levels seen in several other states, a race for the supreme court has turned ugly. In 2004, challenger Will T. Scott defeated incumbent justice Janet Stumbo. In 2012, Stumbo is challenging Justice Scott to regain the seat. The judicial campaign conduct committee has labeled ads by both candidates misleading and described one ad as appearing to be designed to appeal to racial prejudice.

Louisiana

The supreme court resolved for itself the question of who would become chief justice when Chief Justice Catherine Kimball steps down in early 2013, tapping Justice Bernette Johnson to be the state's first black chief justice. In recent months, there has been a dispute over whether Justice Johnson's service on the court as part of a Voting Rights Act settlement should count towards her seniority. A fellow justice argued that only her tenure as an "elected justice" should be counted. In September, a federal district court judge ruled that Justice Johnson was the most senior justice, and the state appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

By mid-October, eight candidates for a state supreme court seat had raised nearly $2 million collectively. The open seat is created by Chief Justice Kitty Kimball's retirement.

Michigan

With three contested supreme court races on the ballot, the November elections will determine the ideological balance on the court, the current composition of which is 4-3 in favor of Republicans. Supreme court justices are nominated at party conventions but run on a nonpartisan ballot.

An ad sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based Judicial Crisis Network criticizes a supreme court candidate for volunteering to provide free legal representation to individuals suspected of terrorism. Spending on the ad is expected to top $1 million.

One expert on campaign spending in the state speculates that spending on supreme court races by candidates, special interests, and political parties will exceed $10 million. It is difficult to track, however, because much of the spending is not subject to disclosure rules.

Missouri

Supporters of Amendment 3, which would alter the composition of the appellate judicial commission and require the commission to identify 4 (rather then 3) nominees for each vacancy, announced that they will not campaign for the amendment’s passage. They attribute this decision to the "biased and misleading" ballot language submitted by the secretary of state, though two state courts found the language "fair and sufficient," and they plan to save their resources for a future effort to accomplish "meaningful judicial reform."

Both gubernatorial candidates oppose Amendment 3, The Republican challenger believes the measure places too much power in the governor’s hands, and the incumbent governor believes the existing process has worked well.

Following public interviews of 18 applicants and private deliberations, the appellate judicial commission selected three nominees for possible appointment to the supreme court vacancy created by Justice Ray Price's retirement. Three interviewees were women and one was a minority, with six from outside metropolitan areas. Governor Nixon must make the appointment within 60 days.

Montana

With less than a month until the November elections, a federal judge struck down the state's limits on campaign contributions, finding that existing limits prevent candidates from mounting effective campaigns. The case was brought by conservative activists, corporations, and Republican groups. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated the law and requested that the district court judge share his reasoning. The judge issued a 38-page conclusion in response. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision, leaving the limits in place for November.

A pro-business group known as the Montana Growth Network funded a radio ad attacking a supreme court candidate's position on the death penalty. The candidate asked his opponent to denounce the ad, as the code of judicial conduct recommends when third parties make false statements about candidates, but she responded that she would need to do extensive research to determine the ad's factuality. The November election for an open supreme court seat is largely overshadowed by high-profile senatorial and gubernatorial contests. The candidates have each spent approximately $50,000 to promote their campaigns, but polls show that most voters remain undecided.

New Hampshire

A former governor and a former supreme court justice oppose a measure on the November ballot that would give the legislature the same authority as the supreme court to make rules governing the administration of all state courts. In the event of a conflict between the two, the legislature would prevail. Justice John P. Nadeau called Question 2 a "major unprecedented intrusion" into the work of a coequal branch of government. The measure, if approved by two-thirds of voters, would make New Hampshire the only state in which the legislature has ultimate authority over court administration.

New Jersey

According to a recent poll, 70 percent of voters favor a proposed constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the authority to require that judges contribute more toward their pensions and benefits. Earlier this year, the state supreme court ruled that judges were exempt from a new law requiring public employees to pay more because it effectively reduced judges’ salaries in violation of the constitution.

New Mexico

The judicial performance evaluation commission recommended retention of three appellate judges standing for retention in November, though one judge scored lower than his colleagues on timeliness of rulings and handling ongoing workload. Through the judicial performance evaluation program created in 1997, judges are evaluated mid-term and prior to standing for retention in the areas of legal ability, fairness, communications skills, preparation, attentiveness, temperament, and control over proceedings.

New York

Governor Cuomo's first appointments to the state’s appellate courts reflect an emphasis on diversity. Of the seven appointees, one judge is Asian, two are black, and one is openly gay. There is diversity in their professional backgrounds as well. The governor appoints judges to the appellate division of the supreme (trial) court from nominees submitted by a screening panel.

North Carolina

All eight candidates for the state's appellate courts qualified for public financing, with supreme court candidates receiving $240,100 each and court of appeals candidates receiving $164,400. At least two outside groups are raising and spending funds in support of the Republican supreme court candidate. In the past two election cycles, there has been a 25 percent dropoff for judicial elections, with one fourth of voters who cast ballots in the top-of-the-ticket races skipping judicial races. One candidate hopes to bring voters to the polls by airing ads during "Judge Judy."

In the sole supreme court race, a super PAC formed by Republican activists is supporting the challenger. Known as N.C. Judicial Coalition, the PAC had spent $1.3 million on TV ads and more than $2 million total for incumbent justice Paul Newby by the final week in October. Another conservative group, Americans for Prosperity, put $250,000 into a direct mail campaign. In a public statement, thirty-nine primarily Democratic lawyers and judges around the state decried the influx of outside money into judicial elections.

There is speculation that the GOP will return the state to partisan judicial elections if Republicans win control of the legislative and executive branches in November. The legislature made appellate court elections nonpartisan in 2004, but all eight appellate court candidates have clear partisan affiliations.

Ohio

Challengers to two incumbent supreme court justices questioned their campaign financing practices. One of the challengers promised to recuse himself from cases involving contributors, while the other has raised no money. The incumbents deny any wrongdoing, and one argues that raising money is essential to educating voters about candidates' qualifications. The race for a third supreme court seat on the November ballot is less contentious.

Incumbent justice Robert Cupp asked the state Republican Party to pull an ad describing his election opponent as sympathetic to rapists based on his past opinions as a court of appeals judge. The state bar's campaign advertisement monitoring committee condemned the ad, and the opponent threatened legal action.

Oklahoma

The state bar association launched a website to give voters more information about appellate judges standing for retention. The site explains the merit selection and retention system, provides bios and photos of judges on the ballot, and includes links to judges' decisions. It was created in response to the judicial ratings issued by the state chamber-backed Oklahoma Civil Justice Council, based on judges' rulings in civil liability cases. Some critics argue that the ratings are an effort to intimidate the justices and that the focus on only a subset of cases is inappropriate. Responding to these ratings, a group known as "Yes for Fair and Impartial Judges" mounted an educational campaign to encourage voters to consider the justices' integrity, fairness, and impartiality.

West Virginia

Two weeks before the general election, campaign spending for two seats on the supreme court approached $3.5 million. Only one of the four candidates opted to participate in the state's pilot public financing program.