The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation have awarded multi-year grants totaling $2.4 million to the Justice at Stake Campaign to advance its nonpartisan work. Read Gavel Grab for more.
"In eight years the military commissions ... put three people on trial. ... Meanwhile, the federal courts, our Article III, regular legal court system, has put dozens of terrorists in jail. ... The suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn't borne out."
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State
Justice at Stake in the News
The Justice at Stake Campaign, a national legal reform group, has received new multi-year grants from two prominent foundations, JAS Executive Director Bert Brandenburg announced.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded Justice at Stake a four-year, $2 million grant for long-term capacity building. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awarded Justice at Stake a two-year, $400,000 grant to preserve and strengthen the fairness, impartiality and transparency of the court system.
Justice at Stake and 28 other national organizations called on Monday for prompt Senate votes on judicial nominations. They said political leaders must end a chronic gridlock that is thwarting the delivery of justice. See Gavel Grab for details.
Both tomorrow's costly West Virginia Supreme Court primary contest and Justice at Stake's reporting on soaring judicial election fundraising were spotlighted by a Wall Street Journal blog. For more, see Gavel Grab.
JAS said President Obama, discussing the Supreme Court, "did a significant public disservice by invoking phrases too often used to demonize our nation's courts." See details in Gavel Grab.
A Washington Post article spotlighted surging spending by outside special interest groups in judicial elections nationwide, and it quoted Justice at Stake and JAS partner groups. For details see Gavel Grab.
At an American Bar Association meeting, Justice at Stake and a partner legal reform group called for more rigorous judicial recusal rules to protect fair and impartial courts. For more, see Gavel Grab.
A flood of special interest cash in judicial elections, legislative attacks by anti-court partisans and budget shortfalls are putting enormous pressure on impartial state courts, Justice at Stake and a JAS partner write. Read Gavel Grab for more.
A National Law Journal article spotlighted Justice at Stake's suggestion that Justices Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas strongly consider explaining publicly their reasons for not recusing in the federal health care case. See Gavel Grab for more.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan should strongly consider giving a public explanation of their reasons for not recusing from the federal health care case, Justice at Stake said Monday. Read details in Gavel Grab.
The Jerry Sandusky case “should be a wakeup call for judges everywhere,” Justice at Stake said in urging greater transparency over judicial recusal. Find out more from Gavel Grab.
A Nov. 6 Washington Post editorial cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report's "disturbing findings," the Post wrote, "The revelations once more affirm the need to discard the election of judges."
A Washington Post editorial cited JAS' "New Politics 2009-10" report in urging an end to judicial elections. See Gavel Grab about it, or read more editorials from Pennsylvania, from Alabama, and from Michigan.
The Toledo Blade cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentions how "the story of the 2009-2010 elections and their aftermath in state legislatures in 2011 reveals a coalescing national campaign that seeks to intimidate America's state judges into becoming accountable to money and ideologies instead of the Constitution and the law."
Press TV cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The article mentions how "a small group of super spenders plays the biggest role [in judicial elections], using their money to buy the kind of judges they want hearing their cases."
A Politics PA article cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentions that "Pennsylvania was home to the second costliest judicial elections in the nation in the 2009/2010 cycle."
The State Journal cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentions how "interest groups' spending in judicial elections has experienced a drastic increase."
The Fort Morgan Times quotes Bert Brandenberg, the executive director of Justice at Stake, on the topic of Republican presidential candidates' court reform proposals: Citing Brandenberg, the article reports that "each of the proposals would make courts accountable to politicians, not the Constitution, even when fundamental rights are in danger."
Before a national TV audience, JAS spotlighted the threat to impartial courts posed by heavy special-interest spending on judicial elections, and its new report documenting the threat. For more, see Gavel Grab.
Opelika-Auburn News cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentions how Alabama Supreme Court "Places 1, 2 and 3, ...in last year’s election cost a combined $3.2 million in campaign dollars."
A Register-Guard editorial cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentions that "advocacy groups and political parties working independently from candidates have dramatically increased their spending on judicial elections."
TIME cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article states that "as money floods into judicial elections, we are getting courts that are filled with judges whose first loyalty is not to justice – or to the general public – but to insurance companies, big business and other special interests."
A 'blistering' JAS report on special-interest spending in judicial elections shows why reform is needed to ensure impartial courts, a TIME analyst declares. Find out more from Gavel Grab.
The Herald-Dispatch cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article mentioned how the 2009-2010 judicial elections showed a "coalescing national campaign that seeks to intimidate America’s state judges into becoming accountable to money and ideologies instead of the constitution and the law."
The Republic cites Justice at Stake and the recently released "New Politics of Judicial Elections" report, co-authored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Citing the report, the article reports that "candidates for three seats on Alabama's top court in 2010 spent nearly $3.2 million combined."
