National Report: 2002 Illinois Supreme Court Campaign May Be A Sign of Worse to Come; Poll Shows Popularity of Reforms that Would Curb Special Interest Influence in Judicial Elections

5/20/2004

From: Jesse Rutledge of Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454, or Cindi Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, 312-335-1767

WASHINGTON, May 20 -- A new report from a Washington watchdog organization shows that Illinois ranks among a handful of states that have become perennial "battlegrounds" for state Supreme Court elections. The average cost of winning a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court climbed more than 25 percent between 2000 and 2002. The report also notes that much of the TV advertising employed by the candidates' campaigns was designed to send messages to voters about the sort of rulings they would make if elected.

"Special interests are working around the clock to pressure judges to serve their interests, not the public interest. They want judges to make promises in advance as to how they'll decide case," said Bert Brandenburg, acting executive director of Justice at Stake. "They want to pressure the judges who protect our rights to rule in their interest, not the public interest. That's wrong."

Justice at Stake also released a new nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International showing that Americans are alarmed by the increasing power of money and special interest politics in judicial elections-and that they want reforms.

According to the poll, more than four of five voters nationwide (82 percent) are concerned that a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing judges to speak more freely in their campaigns will result in increased special interest influence. Similarly, 82 percent would like to see their states match the standard adopted in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that requires the disclosure of those that bankroll TV advertising campaigns mentioning candidates around election season.

At a Capitol Hill news conference unveiling both the report and the poll, Senator John McCain decried the increasing influence of special interests over the judicial election process.

"The extreme amount of big money in this year's judicial elections will only reduce public trust in the judicial system," Senator McCain said. "Survey after survey shows that Americans from all walks of life want a fair and impartial judicial system free from the corrupting influences of special interests."

"Too often, voters do not have enough information about judicial candidates," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a Chicago-based non- partisan public interest group that conducts research and advocates good government reforms. "Around election season, negative TV ads dominate the airwaves. Voters need access to unbiased information, such as the kind provided in nonpartisan voter guides, in order to make informed decisions when voting for judges."

Canary noted that the Justice at Stake poll highlighted that 67 percent of voters said that receiving a nonpartisan voter guide would make them more likely to vote in judicial elections.

The report was authored by Deborah Goldberg of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Samantha Sanchez of the Institute of Money in State Politics. It was issued by the Justice at Stake Campaign, a partnership of over 40 judicial, legal and citizen groups from across the country that works for fair and impartial courts. The Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice in Montgomery is a Justice at Stake Campaign partner.

Justice at Stake and its campaign partners support a variety of measures to protect America's courts, including: campaign oversight and citizen monitoring committees to blow the whistle on inappropriate campaign conduct; providing more and better information so voters can make an informed choice when they vote for judge; and campaign finance reform.

A radio news release, complete poll results and a downloadable copy of THE NEW POLITICS OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2002 is available at http://www.justiceatstake.org.