Former Chief Justice of Alabama "Disgusted" by What She Had to Do to Get Elected

Sue Bell Cobb writes in Politico "I never quite got over the feeling of being trapped inside a system whose very structure left me feeling disgusted."

Justice Cobb's article entitled "I Was Alabama’s Top Judge. I’m Ashamed by What I Had to Do to Get There: How money is ruining America’s courts" says

"In Alabama, would-be judges are allowed to ask for money directly. We can make calls not just to the usual friends and family but to lawyers who have appeared before us, lawyers who are likely to appear before us, officials with companies who may very well have interests before the court. And I did."

Justice Cobb: "When a judge asks a lawyer who appears in his or her court for a campaign check, it’s about as close as you can get to legalized extortion. Lawyers who appear in your court, whose cases are in your hands, are the ones most interested in giving. It’s human nature: Who would want to risk offending the judge presiding over your case by refusing to donate to her campaign? They almost never say no—even when they can’t afford it."

Bringing back memories of when I lived in Alabama, Justice Cobb mentions the notorious TV ad portraying the opposing judicial candidate as a skunk. I wrote about Alabama judicial elections, in  Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions

Unfortunately, Justice Cobb does not highlight the lawmaking role of state supreme court justices, and instead says they’re "supposed to apply the settled law against the facts and evidence of the case before their court." That sounds more like a trial court. The state supreme court has lots of discretion in making the law "settled" in one direction or another so lower courts can then apply it. It's that lawmaking role of supreme courts that justifies a democratic form of judicial selection, rather than what Justice Cobb calls "merit selection."

Criticism of Alabama's Judicial Elections

The Montgomery Advertiser writes "Partisan judicial races harm state's economy."

"Partisan judicial elections create the perception – and often the reality – that the judicial system is not uniformly fair, that the fund-raising required to run campaigns creates a favored class of contributors who might get special treatment in the courts. "

Unfortunately, the Advertiser advocates a vague "merit selection" without addressing the key question of who picks the pickers and without even mentioning the alternative of senate confirmation.

Judicial Elections in Alabama Criticized by the New York Times

A very strongly worded editorial,  entitled "Death Meted Out by Politicians in Robes."  the Times' editors write "In nearly all of the 32 states that permit capital punishment, a jury makes the final decision on whether a defendant will live or die. Not so in Alabama, where elected judges may override a jury verdict of life in prison and unilaterally impose a death sentence."  "Justice Sotomayor rightly identified the reason Alabama’s judges impose more death sentences per capita than any other state. The judges, she wrote, 'who are elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral pressures.'”

Of course, a candidate running for office in Alabama may benefit from the opposition of the New York Times.  I recall that when I first moved from New York City to Alabama, I saw a bumper sticker that read "If you love New York, take I-95 North."

My own writing on judicial elections in Alabama is here.

Report: Wisconsin Justices Tend to Side With Donors

Report: Wisconsin Justices Tend to Side With Donors

"justices tend to rule in favor of clients whose attorneys contribute to the justices’ election campaigns"
From the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Related: My study of Alabama Supreme Court rulings' correlation with campaign contribution.

Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions

Money, Politics and Judicial Decisions

This article presents the results of a study of 106 decisions by the Supreme Court of Alabama from January 18, 1995 through July 9, 1999. The decisions are in the area of arbitration law and reveal the remarkably close correlation between a justice's votes on arbitration cases and his or her primary source or campaign funds. Justices whose election campaigns are funded by plaintiffs' lawyers oppose arbitration, whereas justices whose campaigns are funded by business favor arbitration. The correlation holds not just with regard to ideologically-charged doctrines, like unconscionability, but also with seemingly bland questions of contract formation, interpretation and waiver.