Vol. 6, No.
3 - Summer 2003
Handbook
Promotes Oversight Committees on Judicial Campaign Conduct
In
1985, a judicial campaign conduct committee stopped an advertisement that stated
“Elect Judge X”—because X had never been a judge. The same Columbus, Ohio,
committee stopped another ad that attacked a candidate for representing a
particular criminal defendant.
Today,
the Columbus committee and its counterparts in five states are striving to
reinforce expectations for judicious campaigning in an era in which such
campaigns are “noisier, nastier, and costlier” than ever before.
Conduct committees resolve issues relating to claims of improper conduct during
campaigns and participate in setting the tone of judicial elections in their
jurisdiction.
The
expansion of non-governmental local and state efforts was recommended recently
by the National Summit on Improving Judicial Selection’s Call To Action and
the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates.
To
implement the recommendation, the National Center for State Courts, in
partnership with the ABA and other organizations, established the National Ad
Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign Conduct (www.judicialcampaignconduct.org).
One of the committee’s key strategies for 2003 is to develop a handbook, How
to Implement and Operate an Effective Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee.
“The
handbook will draw on the wealth of experience found in the Ad Hoc Committee’s
members to encourage creation of new committees and revitalize existing ones.
In the wake of recent federal court decisions, conduct committees are a bulwark
supporting appropriate campaign conduct for judicial positions,” said David
Rottman, a National Center for State Courts’ principal court research
consultant.
Currently,
87 percent of state appellate and trial court judges are elected, and evidence
shows that both the public and judiciary overwhelmingly support oversight by
conduct committees.
“Judicial
elections differ in many ways from elections for other offices,” Rottman said.
“A judge cannot represent a particular group, constituent, party, or friend
because doing so is contrary to the requirement of judicial impartiality and
independence in decision making.” Nongovernmental conduct committees can
comment publicly on the conduct of candidates, political parties, or outside
groups—they can “meet speech with more speech.”
An
expanded version of the Call to Action with commentary on the Summit’s 20
recommendations was issued by NCSC in 2003. It is available for download free of
charge from www.ncsconline.org or by
contacting research@ncsc.dni.us.
The National Center for State Courts is a partner in the ongoing nonpartisan
efforts of the Justice at Stake Campaign. A list of national partners and more
information about the Campaign can be found at www.justiceatstake.org.
|
