07.21.10 Proposal for Judicial Campaign Contribution Disclosure
PETITION FOR CREATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE WEB PAGE
The undersigned respectfully request that the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) create and maintain a web page as part of the AIOC website under which campaign contributions made to each Illinois trial judge, each Illinois Appellate Court Justice, and each Illinois Supreme Court Justice are promptly and publicly available in a user-friendly manner, and that the AOIC regularly publicize the existence of this service to all litigants and the legal community.
We also request that the AOIC include on this web page the verified written statements of economic interest and relationships of the judge or justice and of members of their immediate family that are filed with the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 68.
The creation and maintenance of the requested web page under the direction and control of the AOIC will facilitate public trust and confidence in the judiciary by:
Allowing each lawyer or pro se litigant to discover whether opposing counsel or opposing litigants have provided campaign contributions to a judge or justice before whom he or she is appearing;
Allowing each lawyer or pro se litigant to discover whether the judge or justice before whom he or she is appearing has financial investments or ownership interests related to the case; and
Allowing a lawyer or pro se litigant timely access to information needed to determine whether to exercise his or her right to an automatic substitution of judge or justice or a substitution for cause as provided for under Illinois law.
Signed,
Petition Sponsors: Chicago Council of Lawyers Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Petition Co-Sponsors:
Memorandum in Support of Petition to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
With the exception of associate judges and the filling of certain vacancies that occur during the course of a judges or justices term of office, Illinois judges and justices are publicly elected. Candidates for election or retention to the Illinois judiciary engage in extensive campaign fundraising. They receive substantial contributions from corporations, law firms, and individual lawyers. Presently, individuals seeking election to or retention on the bench need to accumulate significant sums of contributions, often reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars at the intermediate appellate and Supreme Court levels. A large enough number of these contributors appear before these judges or justices in court or expect to do so, providing a substantial and publicly known motive to contribute to their campaigns that threatens judicial independence and exacerbates the publics existing mistrust of Illinois justice system. Judicial elections driven by escalating funding needs expose judges and justices to increasing claims of bias or susceptibility to outside influence, whether valid or not.
Records of campaign contributions should be easily accessible to litigants, their counsel and the public. Even if judges are not positively influenced by campaign contributions, the publics perception is that they are reciprocal. As a result, judges who have received contributions from litigants must make a conscious effort to appear impartial. A judge who has to worry about the appearance of impartiality, however, is not sufficiently detached from the circumstances of the case and therefore deprives the public of its right to an independent judge.
In Caperton v. Massey, 129 S. Cr. 2252 (2009), a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice refused to recuse himself after receiving $3 million in campaign contributions from the defendant in a case. That Justice cast the deciding vote to overturn a $50 million verdict against the defendant. Writing for the majority, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, "We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias - based on objective and reasonable perceptions - when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.
In Wisconsin, a Supreme Court Justice ruled on cases involving a bank that her husband helped operate, companies in which she owned $50,000 in stock, and an organization that provided $2 million to assist her campaign In each case, the Justice failed to remove herself; she ruled in favor of the involved party over 90 percent of the time. Ziegler was eventually fined $17,000, and the state Judicial Commission reprimanded her.
Under the right to due process provided by the U.S. Constitution, litigants are guaranteed the right to a fair trial with an impartial judge who is not predisposed to either side of the case. In civil cases in Illinois, either party may request a substitution of judge pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1001:
A substitution of judge in any civil action may be had in the following situations:
(1) Involvement of judge. When the judge is a party or interested in the
action, or he or she is related to or has been counsel for any party
in regard to the matter in controversy. In any such situation a substitution
of judge may be awarded by the court with or without the application of
either party.
(2) Substitution as of right. When a party timely exercises his or her right to
a substitution without cause as provided in this paragraph (2).
(i) Each party shall be entitled to one substitution of judge without
cause as a matter of right.
(ii) An application for substitution of judge as of right shall be made by
motion and shall be granted if it is presented before trial or hearing
begins and before the judge to whom it is presented has ruled on any
substantial issue in the case, or if it is presented by consent of the
parties.
In order to properly expeditiously exercise this right when a judge has accepted campaign contributions from one or more of the parties/counsel to litigation, the litigants and their lawyers must have timely and easy access to judges or justices campaign contributions and other relevant financial information. Given the short time frame in which to file motions for substitution of judges, relevant information should be at the easy disposal of litigants and their lawyers.
Available technologies now allow for a cost effective solution to what Petitioners believe is a clear problem-- creation of the web page proposed in the Petition above. Judges and justices campaign committees are already required by law to file reports with the needed information. (See the Illinois Campaign Financing Act, 10 ILCS 5/9-27 et al.) Additionally, judges and justices must also comply with the economic interest disclosure requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 68. However, it is not easily available in a centralized, electronically accessible manner. Development of the requested web page creates an objective means by which the public and litigants can obtain accurate information. The page should be constructed that provides an election summary for each year, beginning in 2000. Links to each judge would provide a breakdown of each major contributor and the amount contributed. Additionally, the support that a candidate received in donated services or products should be summarized with approximate monetary values
The legal profession and the judiciary have a duty to strengthen public trust and confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Taking steps to ensure that these considerable campaign contributions do not stand in the way of due process and ultimately justice is an excellent way to begin. Only when complete disclosure is obtained can transparency be achieved and perception of corruption be reduced.