A National Partnership Working for Fair and Impartial Courts
Contact Us Home February 5, 2012
"At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch ... the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races."
Justice John Paul Stevens, in Citizens United v. FEC, Jan. 21, 2010
 

Facts & Stats


39 states elect at least some appellate or major trial court judges. See
Contested Elections vs. Appointments.


76% of Americans believe campaign contributions have at least some impact on a judge’s courtroom decisions. See
Money & Elections or Polls.


Spending on state Supreme Court elections more than doubled in the past decade, from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009. See
Money & Elections.


93% of Americans believe judges should not hear cases involving major campaign supporters. 81% believe a neutral judge, not the judge whose fairness is being challenged, should decide whether a judge should avoid a case involving campaign benefactors.See
Recusal or Polls.


The USA PATRIOT Act and other post-September 11 policies
dramatically weakened the historic power of the courts to protect our rights and check possible government abuses. See Civil Liberties & National Security.


Congress periodically engages in waves of “court-stripping,”
often to punish the courts for particular rulings on hot-button social issues. See Court-Stripping.


There are only two Hispanic women among the 161 active judges
on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, following Justice Sonia Sotomayor's elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court,  Sixty-one percent of active federal appellate judges are white males. See Diversity.

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
The positions and policies of Justice at Stake publications and campaign partners are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other campaign partners or board members.
Web Services by Global Reach