Since not every state elects its judges like Illinois, the question of whether we should reform our process is always floating around. “Tort deformers” like the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL) like that we elect judges, but they’d also like to tweak the system to benefit their Big Business cronies. Of course, they always mask these sneaky ideas as changes that everyone should want. Take for example ICJL president Ed Murnane, who wrote about this issue on his blog the other day. Let’s look at what Murnane had to say this time, and then take a peek behind his smoke screen.
Last year, the Illinois Civil Justice League circulated — not widely enough — a proposal for judicial selection in reform in Illinois that continues the practice of electing judges, but makes several modifications.
We can still make the process more business-friendly, but the most important thing is that we keep the elections! After all, Big Business dumps loads of money into judicial campaigns each election cycle. We spend more money financing these races than any other group. In fact, a 2007 report by the Justice at Stake Campaign showed that business lobbyists spend over twice as much as our favorite scapegoats, trial lawyers, and way more than any union (check out page 18 in the report).
One [modification] is to remove judicial elections from the partisan Republican vs. Democrat battleground.
We hate the fact that some of our guys can’t compete with a (R) behind their name. Removing party labels would prevent so many Dems from voting straight ticket.
Perhaps the most significant [modification] is to change the election day for judicial officers from the November ballot to the Spring ballot when most Illinois communities are conducting elections for municipal officials and school officials.
Why? Well, low voter turnout is great for us (they openly admit this), and fewer people vote in the spring. Plus, with fewer high profile races, spring elections mean more available media space for our “tort deform” ads!
Great…
Actually, we agree with Murnane on one point: there are too many special interests involved in today’s judicial races (whether he actually means this is another question). Just don’t expect the ICJL to admit that corporations are the worst offenders. Whenever this issue comes up, “tort deformers” never fail to blame lawyers (you know, for standing up for consumer interests and all). In reality, it isn’t even close to a fair fight. Read this story from Monday’s Tribune. It pretty much sums up what’s wrong the system: like this true story of how special interest financing can hurt Illinois consumers.
The behavior of courts that consistently issue narrowly divided opinions can be significantly influenced by a change of one or two seats. That dynamic was at work in Illinois in 2004 when $9.3 million was spent in the Supreme Court contest between then-Circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier and then-Appellate Judge Gordon Maag. Karmeier won the most expensive court race in recent U.S. history with the heavy financial assistance of business and insurance interests hoping to obtain a reversal of a $456 million damage verdict against State Farm Insurance. After taking his seat on the bench, Karmeier declined to recuse himself from considering the case and later voted with the court majority to reverse the damage award.
That’s the kind of story that should send a chill down your spine. As perhaps the last place where we can stand up and hold powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing, our civil justice system demands that judges be unbiased arbiters. It's frightening to imagine fat cat special interests trying to raid this last consumer safeguard.
