Lawmakers ponder high cost of high court elections
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Elections watchdog groups say it's a disturbing national trend: special interest groups are spending more and more money in judicial elections, attempting to stack state judiciaries with candidates of their liking.
"Basically the concern is the judges who are elected due to interest group spending may be beholden to those interests," said Laura MacCleery of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The center is a nonpartisan group that follows judicial elections.
Last October, candidates in an Alabama Supreme Court race each reported raising more than $1 million in six weeks alone - most of it coming from interest groups or political parties. And candidates for the bench in a 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court race spent roughly $3 million before Election Day.
Some lawmakers in Washington state want to reverse the trend by making public financing available to candidates for the state's high court.
"Across the country we are seeing an explosion of money in our state Supreme Court races," said Rep. Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo. "We need to reinsert the public's voice in the election process."
Liias is sponsoring a bill that would make public financing available to Supreme Court candidates. He said a hefty increase in special interest donations to candidates in 2004 and 2006 election cycles highlighted the state's need for such a system.
Two other states, New Mexico and North Carolina, have enacted judicial public financing programs in the past two years; 16 states make public financing available for other statewide positions.
But with Washington state facing a roughly $8 billion budget shortfall, and the Legislature's bill cutoff dates passed, the measure is stalled. And it's not the first time, either. Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed a similar idea in 2007, setting aside $4.4 million in her budget proposal, but was rebuked by some lawmakers who said public financing was not necessary.
They noted that for all the money that was spent by opponents in Supreme Court races - more than $2.7 million by third-party groups in 2006 - the incumbent justices retained their seats.
According to MacCleery, of the Brennan Center, judicial public financing programs in New Mexico and North Carolina are too new to be assessed for effectiveness.
Although the Washington bill is stalled this session, the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee conducted a hearing on it Thursday.
Committee chairman Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, said it was worth having a conversation about public financing.
In order to be eligible for money under Liias' measure, candidates would have to collect 500 "qualifying" donations from individual donors - business groups, unions or political committees, for example, would be excluded - each valued at a minimum of $10. As the bill stands, $164,200 would be available for each high court candidate for primary campaigns; $205,250 would be made available for the general election - unless a candidate runs unopposed, in which case a much smaller $6,568 would be offered.
Additionally, "rescue funds" would be available to candidates who take public money if a nonparticipating candidate raises more money - or if outside groups invest to influence an election, though that money would be capped at around $800,000.
Republicans weren't enthused about the proposal.
Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee, said he was skeptical about creating a large and "unwieldy system" that would be using public money to revamp an approach he said isn't broken.
The state's Public Disclosure Commission already provides election transparency and is more advanced than most, he said.
---
The public financing bill is House Bill 1738.
"Basically the concern is the judges who are elected due to interest group spending may be beholden to those interests," said Laura MacCleery of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The center is a nonpartisan group that follows judicial elections.
Last October, candidates in an Alabama Supreme Court race each reported raising more than $1 million in six weeks alone - most of it coming from interest groups or political parties. And candidates for the bench in a 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court race spent roughly $3 million before Election Day.
Some lawmakers in Washington state want to reverse the trend by making public financing available to candidates for the state's high court.
"Across the country we are seeing an explosion of money in our state Supreme Court races," said Rep. Marko Liias, D-Mukilteo. "We need to reinsert the public's voice in the election process."
Liias is sponsoring a bill that would make public financing available to Supreme Court candidates. He said a hefty increase in special interest donations to candidates in 2004 and 2006 election cycles highlighted the state's need for such a system.
Two other states, New Mexico and North Carolina, have enacted judicial public financing programs in the past two years; 16 states make public financing available for other statewide positions.
But with Washington state facing a roughly $8 billion budget shortfall, and the Legislature's bill cutoff dates passed, the measure is stalled. And it's not the first time, either. Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed a similar idea in 2007, setting aside $4.4 million in her budget proposal, but was rebuked by some lawmakers who said public financing was not necessary.
They noted that for all the money that was spent by opponents in Supreme Court races - more than $2.7 million by third-party groups in 2006 - the incumbent justices retained their seats.
According to MacCleery, of the Brennan Center, judicial public financing programs in New Mexico and North Carolina are too new to be assessed for effectiveness.
Although the Washington bill is stalled this session, the House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee conducted a hearing on it Thursday.
Committee chairman Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, said it was worth having a conversation about public financing.
In order to be eligible for money under Liias' measure, candidates would have to collect 500 "qualifying" donations from individual donors - business groups, unions or political committees, for example, would be excluded - each valued at a minimum of $10. As the bill stands, $164,200 would be available for each high court candidate for primary campaigns; $205,250 would be made available for the general election - unless a candidate runs unopposed, in which case a much smaller $6,568 would be offered.
Additionally, "rescue funds" would be available to candidates who take public money if a nonparticipating candidate raises more money - or if outside groups invest to influence an election, though that money would be capped at around $800,000.
Republicans weren't enthused about the proposal.
Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee, said he was skeptical about creating a large and "unwieldy system" that would be using public money to revamp an approach he said isn't broken.
The state's Public Disclosure Commission already provides election transparency and is more advanced than most, he said.
---
The public financing bill is House Bill 1738.