Contact: Charles Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454; (cell): 202-384-4447
Poll: Huge Majority Wants Firewall Between Judges, Election Backers
On Brink of Supreme Court Case, Public Says Bias Likely When Campaign Cash Is Involved
By overwhelming margins, U.S. adults doubt that elected judges can be impartial in cases involving their biggest election campaign financial supporters, and the public says judges should step aside from such cases, according to a new national poll by Harris Interactive.
Moreover, 81 percent say judges should not decide whether they can fairly hear a case, saying that another judge should weigh the facts when a judge’s neutrality is challenged.
The poll comes as the Supreme Court prepares to consider when judges whose campaign supporters appear before them should step aside.
“Americans overwhelmingly believe that campaign cash has no place in the courtroom,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog that works to protect courts from special-interest and partisan agendas. “They are very skeptical that a judge can be impartial when one side has spent big dollars to help put them on the bench.”
In recent years, special interest spending on judicial races has soared, leading former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and other prominent jurists to say there is an appearance that justice is “for sale.”
A landmark Supreme Court case called Caperton v. Massey also is bringing attention to the issue.
In that case, coal executive Don Blankenship, whose company faced a $50 million jury award, spent $3 million on his own independent campaign to elect a new West Virginia Supreme Court justice. The justice, Brent D. Benjamin, cast the deciding vote to overturn the lawsuit. As in most states, Benjamin had the final word on whether he should leave the case, and he refused to do so.
According to a telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive and commissioned by the Justice at Stake Campaign, 81 percent say judges should not decide motions asking them to step aside, saying that other neutral jurists should make that call. Only 11 percent believed that judges should decide whether they can appropriately participate in a case.
Moreover, 68 percent said they would doubt a judge’s impartiality if one party to a case had spent $50,000 to elect the judge. An even greater share, 73 percent, said they would doubt a judge’s neutrality if one side in a case spent $1 million to elect the judge. Those who doubted a judge’s impartiality outnumbered those who didn’t by margins of about 3 to 1.
The amount of money made no significant difference in attitudes on whether a judge should recuse him or herself from cases involving a party who spent $50,000 or $1 million to elect the judge. In both cases, about 85 percent felt a judge should step aside, and only about 10 percent felt the judge should stay.
A separate USA Today poll found that about 90 percent believe judges should not hear cases involving campaign contributors.
Brandenburg noted that the American Bar Association, the Brennan Center for Justice and others are exploring a wide range of reforms, so that judges are not even perceived to offer special treatment to election supporters. These include having neutral judges review motions for a judge to step aside—a reform overwhelmingly supported in the poll.
Although the Caperton case examines only whether now-Chief Justice Benjamin violated a litigant’s constitutional rights, nearly all 50 states have additional judicial rules requiring judges to step aside if a reasonable person might question their fairness.
“These polls show a clear verdict, and elected judges should be aware of it,” Brandenburg said. “For most Americans, cases involving major financial supporters fail the smell test. The public believes everyone is entitled to a fair day in court, before an impartial judge.”
To learn more about the Caperton v. Massey case, and about potential reforms of recusal rules for judges, see the Justice at Stake online Caperton v. Massey resource site, or visit Brennan Center for Justice pages on Caperton and recusal reform.
About the Survey
The poll was conducted by telephone by Harris Interactive on behalf of the Justice at Stake Campaign between February 12 and February 15, 2009, among 1,006 U.S. adults ages 18+. Full survey results can be found here. For further information on the survey, including methodology and weighing variables, contact Charles Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454, or chall@justiceatstake.org, Michelle Melamud, Harris Interactive, 212-539-9517, or MMelamud@harrisinteractive.com.
