New York’s Judicial Campaign Reform a Great Start
The New York Administrative Board of Courts recently issued a new rule that would prohibit judges from hearing cases where any one of the lawyers or parties on either side has contributed $2,500 or more to that judge’s election campaign. (The case will be transferred if a lawyer’s firm has contributed $3,500 or more.) The Board, which is comprised of five of the state’s top judges, issued the rule for public comment last month, and it is expected to take effect at the end of April.
The New York Judiciary has taken a bold step in promulgating the strongest judicial campaign finance rule in the United States. This, despite the fact that New York’s judicial campaigns are modestly funded compared to many other states, including Illinois.
According to a 2009 report (PDF) from the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake, Illinois ranked 4th nationally in judicial campaign spending for the period of 2000-2009. Illinois judicial candidates raised nearly $21 million in that time frame. And these numbers are pre-Citizens United, which opened the floodgates to an anticipated rush of corporate donations.
In an editorial this week, the Chicago Tribune noted a potential drawback to New York’s rule. Namely, it does nothing to deter negative ad spending, while disarming a judge’s defense against such ads. Agreed. However, the rule sends the right message to all contributors to judicial campaigns—if you’re hoping to buy a ruling, then save your money.
In the 2009 case of Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign spending could disqualify a judge from cases involving major supporters, but it did not define “major supporters.” Massey may have influenced the New York Board’s decision to create a framework for when judges must recuse themselves. The New York Administrative Board of Courts has taken a critical and positive step to separate politics and the judiciary and to promote judicial independence. We at Chicago Appleseed recommend that Illinois do the same.