|
| File - In this March 21, 2016 photo, Kansas state Sen. Steve Fitzgerald, right, R-Leavenworth, confers with Sen. Rick Wilborn, R-McPherson, during a debate on a bill declaring that state Supreme Court justices can be impeached for attempting to "usurp the power" of lawmakers and the executive branch, at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. Lawmakers in Kansas and Missouri have proposed expanding rules for impeaching judges. |
ATLANTA
(AP) -- Much attention is being paid to the U.S. Supreme Court
vacancy, but equally partisan battles are being waged for control of
state courts around the nation.
In states
where voters elect Supreme Court judges, millions of dollars are being
spent to reshape the courts for years to come. Judicial watchdogs say
spending by national groups overwhelmingly favors judges on the right of
the political spectrum, and is mostly aimed at maintaining or improving
the courts' responses to corporate interests while countering
state-level spending by labor unions and other interest groups.
Lawmakers
are busy too, debating proposals to tip the balance of power by
expanding or reducing their court's size, or making it easier to impeach
judges whose rulings upset the legislative majority.
"State
courts are the final word on a host of state law issues that have high
stakes for businesses' bottom lines, legislatures' agendas and the
rights of individuals," said Alicia Bannon with the Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University. "Who sits on state courts can have a
profound impact on the legal landscape in a state, and special interest
groups and politicians are increasingly paying attention."
State
supreme court elections have begun to resemble the rough-and-tumble,
high-dollar campaigns associated with races for governor or Congress.
Voters in about two dozen states are casting ballots for state supreme
court justices this year. Spending for two Arkansas Supreme Court seats
alone topped $1.6 million, setting a state record for TV ad buys in a
judicial election.
The Judicial Crisis
Network, which is spending millions campaigning against President Barack
Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and the Republican State
Leadership Committee were successful in seeing their candidates
elected, including a new chief justice who says he's guided by "prayer,
not politics."
The races were so acrimonious
that some Arkansas Republicans are considering ending popular elections
for the top court, while some Democrats want more transparency by
outside spending groups.
Wisconsin voters also
have been exposed to months of TV ads over a Supreme Court seat ahead
of Tuesday's primary. Most of the ads support Justice Rebecca Bradley, a
conservative whom Republican Gov. Scott Walker promoted through the
judicial system and onto the state's top court in just three years. Now
she's seeking a full, 10-year term.
The
conservative Wisconsin Alliance for Reform has spent at least $1.5
million on TV ads for Bradley, while the liberal Greater Wisconsin
Committee has spent at least $345,430 supporting Appeals Court Judge
JoAnne Kloppenburg, who would narrow the court's conservative majority
if elected. Both totals reflect Federal Communications Commission
records of TV buys analyzed by the judicial campaign watchdog Justice at
Stake.
Partisan control of Pennsylvania's
Supreme Court flipped last fall after six candidates for three open
seats combined for $12.2 million in contributions and two independent
groups spent an additional $3.5 million. Democrats swept all three
races, taking five of the seven seats after six years of Republican
control.
A race in Kansas is likely to be
another big-money battleground. Groups supportive of Republican Gov. Sam
Brownback and the GOP-controlled Legislature will be looking to oust
four of the five justices up for retention elections in November,
enabling Brownback to select their replacements to the seven-member
court.
Lawmakers also are weighing changes to
their systems of electing, appointing or retaining judges, mostly trying
to limit the power of state courts to overrule them.
A
bill in Oklahoma would allow voters to overturn some state Supreme
Court decisions. Washington lawmakers are weighing whether to not only
shrink their Supreme Court from nine justices to five, but also force
judges to run in districts rather than statewide. One lawmaker said this
could prevent an "intensely liberal concentration" in the Seattle area
from diluting the influence of Republicans in the rest of the state.
"There
has been an anger and frustration that legislative efforts have been
enacted and then within one, two or three years those statutes have been
struck down as unconstitutional," said Bill Raftery, an analyst at the
National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit research organization.
After
the Kansas Supreme Court ordered the legislature to restore school
funding, the state's senators approved a bill enabling the impeachment
of justices who attempt to "usurp the power" of lawmakers and executive
branch officials. The House has yet to take it up.
Critics
have said the measure would remove the court's independence by
threatening the justices' careers if the court strikes down a law.
"It
totally handicaps the Supreme Court," Republican state Rep. Steve
Becker, a retired district court judge.
"It would render the Supreme
Court useless, basically."
Missouri lawmakers also proposed a plan to make it easier to impeach justices.
Increased
populations and caseloads require expanding the Supreme Courts in
Arizona and Georgia, supporters say; Critics argue that in both states,
Republicans simply want to add more judges who will vote in their favor.
The
expansion of Georgia's Supreme Court from seven justices to nine now
awaits the signature of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, who pushed for the
change. Between the expansion and anticipated retirements, Deal could
select four more justices before his term ends.
In
Arizona, Republican state Rep. J.D. Mesnard said during a committee
hearing that expanding the court from five to seven justices would
"spread that power out to more people." He emphasized that Republican
Gov. Doug Ducey had not approached him about the bill, and said "I would
feel this way regardless of who is on the court or regardless of the
decisions that have come down."
Democratic
Sen. Martin Quezada said the plan could be seen as an effort to "pack"
the court with conservative justices, and suggested delaying
implementation until the next governor takes office. That might not be
until January 2019, if Ducey doesn't win a second term. A Republican
colleague noted the irony of a Democrat suggesting such a delay, given
the party's frustration over the U.S. Senate Republicans' refusal to
consider Obama's nominee.
Mesnard acknowledged that it can be difficult sometimes to separate politics from policy.
"If
the shoe were on the other foot, I'll just candidly say, if it was a
different person appointing, I might feel less comfortable," he said.
