Money in Judicial Elections, 2009–2010 National Institute on Money in State Politics During the 2009-2010 elections, candidates who ran for high court and appellate court seats raised more than $45 million in contributions. The Institute has just published our latest report, _Money in Judicial Elections, 2009–2010_ (http://mx8.inboxgateway.com/clicks.php?coid=931470&cid=3088&url=21892) , providing a comprehensive analysis of the money raised by candidates who sought seats on the states’ highest benches. The report, which evaluates the 72 high court races and 253 intermediate appellate court races that were decided in 2009 and 2010, finds that partisan judicial races attracted $33.5 million—nearly four times the $8.7 million raised in nonpartisan races. As is typical, the lawyer, lobbyist and law firm sector was the largest, accounting for almost one-third of the money raised by judicial candidates. The candidates themselves accounted for 11 percent of the money they raised: 157 of the 475 judicial candidates provided $4.8 million of their own money to their campaigns. Male candidates accounted for 63 percent of those who ran for judicial office, although female candidates raised more money on average. As a group, 73 percent of female candidates were winners compared to 66 percent of male candidates. Candidates from an ethnic or racial minority made up just 9 percent of all candidates who ran for a judicial seat and enjoyed a higher success rate than non-minority candidates. Money in Judicial Elections, 2009-2010 _http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=ove rview-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nimsp-c ontacts_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overview-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_sourc e=nimsp-contacts) In 2009 and 2010, 72 high court races were on the ballot in 35 states and 253 intermediate appellate court races were decided in 31 states. Of the 475 judicial candidates who ran for these seats, 265 raised money totaling slightly more than $45 million: $26.6 million by high court candidates and $18.5 million by appellate court candidates. Partisan races typically attract the lion’s share of money raised in judicial elections and the elections in 2009 and 2010 were no exception. Partisan judicial races attracted $33.5 million—nearly four times the $8.7 million raised in nonpartisan races. Partisan high court races attracted $18.5 million in seven states, compared to $5.2 million raised in 11 of the 13 states holding nonpartisan races (no money was raised in two states). That continues a trend seen between 2000 and 2009, when nearly $153.8 million was raised by candidates who ran in high court partisan races in nine states, compared to $50.9 million raised by candidates who ran in high court nonpartisan races in 13 states, which is about 25 percent of all high court fundraising throughout the study period. Retention elections, which typically receive much less attention, attracted just $2.2 million in contributions, representing about 1 percent._1_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overvie w-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nimsp-conta cts#footnoteid1) Because of the numerous and varied election processes for judicial elections—length of terms, type of elections that include retention bids, and partisan v. nonpartisan—a comparison of races across states is not feasible. However, some interesting findings about state supreme court elections across the country were revealed in (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=435) _The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000–2009_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=435) . For instance, the Business Council of Alabama, which was one of the top ten contributors to judicial races in Alabama between 2000 and 2009, also holds a top spot in this 2009–10 analysis of all states.
Partisan elections: candidates who identify with a political party during the election Nonpartisan elections: candidates listed on the ballot with no party affiliation Retention elections: voters choose whether or not the incumbent remains in office Judicial Contributions by Economic Sectors, 2009–2010 Seven of every 10 dollars came from contributors in six economic sectors. As is typical, the lawyer, lobbyist and law firm sector was the largest, accounting for almost one-third of the money raised by judicial candidates. Donors from this sector gave $14.7 million in 2009–10: $8.4 million to high court candidates and nearly $6.4 million to appellate court candidates. TABLE 1: Top Six Economic Sectors Giving to Judicial Campaigns, 2009–2010 Sector High Court Candidates Appellate Court Candidates Total Percent of Overall Total Lawyers, Lobbyists and Law Firms $8,366,950 $6,352,163 $14,719,113 33% Self-Financed Candidates $1,320,047 $3,452,486 $4,772,533 11% Political Party Committees $3,486,599 $876,904 $4,363,503 10% General Business $2,215,769 $517,587 $2,733,356 6% Organized Labor $2,212,591 $504,278 $2,716,869 6% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $1,493,448 $627,754 $2,121,202 5% TOTAL $19,095,404 $12,331,172 $31,426,076 70% The candidates themselves accounted for 11 percent of the money raised: 157 of the 475 judicial candidates provided $4.8 million of their own money to their campaigns. For the high court, 34 of the 117 candidates gave themselves an average $38,825; 123 of the 358 appellate court candidates gave themselves an average $28,069. Political party committees gave $4.4 million, or 10 percent of the total given to judicial races. Republican Party committees gave $2.5 million: $2.2 million went to Republican candidates in partisan races, $1.5 million of which went to high court candidates. Democratic Party committees, in contrast, gave the largest share of their $1.9 million to nonpartisan judicial races, and $1.6 million of that went to high court candidates. Contributors from the general business and the organized labor sectors were each responsible for 6 percent of the total, at $2.7 million each. The Business Council of Alabama gave $1.3 million of the $2.7 million given by all the contributors within the general business sector. Nearly all of the Council’s money went to two Republicans who won supreme court seats in Alabama: incumbent justice Michael F. Bolin ($865,000) and former appellate court judge Kelli Wise ($420,000.) Six unions gave $1.1 million, which amounts to 42 percent of the $2.7 million given by more than 350 labor organizations. The Illinois Federation of Teachers topped the list with $467,361 given to Illinois supreme court candidate Justice Thomas L. Kilbride, who retained his seat. Justice Kilbride’s retention bid was targeted by the Illinois Civil Justice League, a group opposed to Kilbride that viewed the justice as “soft on crime” and whose goal is to set caps on malpractice case awards._2_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overview-of-judicial-election-0 9-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nimsp-contacts#footnoteid2) The Electrical Workers Local 98 of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was the second-largest union donor, giving $212,500 to judicial candidates in Pennsylvania: $120,000 to supreme court candidates and $92,500 to appellate court candidates. Contributors in the finance, insurance, and real estate sector gave $2.1 million, which is 5 percent of the total. Three of the top contributors in this sector gave to Alabama judicial candidates. The Alabama Self-Insurers Association gave $75,000, with $45,000 of it going to appellate court judge Tommy Bryan. The Alabama Independent Agents Association contributed $45,000 total, with $35,000 of it going to supreme court races. Investor R.B. Saunders gave $50,000 to Alabama Justice Tom Parker’s reelection bid. TABLE 2: Total Raised by Judicial Candidates, 2009 and 2010 State Type of Election High Court Candidates Appellate Court Candidates Total Contributions Pennsylvania Partisan & Retention* $5,424,210 $3,506,298 $8,930,508 Texas Partisan $2,934,219 $3,405,861 $6,340,080 Ohio Partisan $2,865,847 $2,079,884 $4,945,731 Louisiana Partisan $1,499,408 $3,269,888 $4,769,296 Illinois Partisan $2,789,649 $1,421,589 $4,211,238 Alabama Partisan $3,164,615 $567,125 $3,731,740 Michigan Partisan $2,342,827 $73,800 $2,416,627 Arkansas Nonpartisan $1,965,962 $288,811 $2,254,774 North Carolina Nonpartisan $411,718 $1,392,294 $1,804,011 Georgia Nonpartisan $588,251 $969,994 $1,558,244 Wisconsin Nonpartisan $802,239 $419,583 $1,221,822 Washington Nonpartisan $889,070 $144,882 $1,033,952 New Mexico Partisan & Retention* $0 $612,229 $612,229 West Virginia Partisan $306,447 n/a** $306,447 Mississippi Nonpartisan $5,000 $256,663 $261,663 Minnesota Nonpartisan $152,803 $44,360 $197,163 Idaho Nonpartisan $162,148 $0 $162,148 Montana Nonpartisan & Retention* $160,174 n/a** $160,174 Oregon Nonpartisan $100,536 $17,880 $118,417 Kentucky Nonpartisan $3,450 n/a** $3,450 TOTAL $26,568,573 $18,471,142 $45,039,715 *Pennsylvania justices initially are elected to court in partisan elections, then face retention elections. Montana justices face retention elections if no challengers enter a competitive nonpartisan election. Ohio judicial candidates run in the primary as partisan but as nonpartisan in the general, and in subsequent elections as nonpartisan retention. Considered partisan for analysis. Michigan judicial candidates are nominated as partisan but run an nonpartisan in subsequent elections. Considered partisan for analysis. New Mexico judicial candidates are first selected on a merit system, then stand for partisan election at the next general election and in subsequent elections as nonpartisan retention. **West Virginia, Montana, and Kentucky do not have intermediate appellate courts. Judicial Races by Gender, 2009–2010 Male candidates accounted for 63 percent of those who ran for judicial offices. As a group, women were generally more successful overall: 73 percent of female candidates were winners compared to 66 percent of male candidates. However, male incumbent judges or justices seeking reelection fared better, with 97 percent of the male candidates returning to their seats compared to 93 percent of incumbent female candidates winning reelection. Of interest, female candidates raised more money on average.High Court * 36 of the 117 high court candidates (31 percent) were female. * 22 of the 36 female candidates raised money; these 22 raised an average of $472,656. * 50 of the 81 male candidates raised money; these 50 raised an average of $323,403. * 17 of 19 (89 percent) female high court justices who sought reelection won: three ran unopposed, four of five won contested races, and 10 of 11 won retention. * 41 of 45 (91 percent) male high court justices who sought reelection won: eight ran unopposed, nine of 11 won contested races, and 24 of 26 won retention. Appellate Court * 140 of the 358 appellate court candidates (39 percent) were female. * 90 of the 140 female candidates raised money; these 90 raised an average of $110,504. * 103 of the 218 male candidates raised money; these 103 raised an average of $82,775. * 82 of 87 (94 percent) incumbent female appellate court judges who sought reelection won: 30 ran unopposed, 16 of 21 won contested elections, and 36 won retention. * 140 of 142 (99 percent) incumbent male appellate court judges who sought reelection won: 39 ran unopposed, 14 of 16 won contested races, and 87 won retention. Judicial Races by Ethnicity, 2009–2010 Candidates from an ethnic or racial minority made up just 9 percent of all candidates who ran for a judicial seat. As a group, however, they enjoyed a higher success rate than non-minority candidates. And, when they raised money, they raised sums comparable to non-minority candidates. * 20 of the 45 candidates in a racial minority raised money, averaging $159,703. * 245 of the 430 non-minority candidates raised money, averaging $170,799. * The 45 candidates from an ethnic or racial minority accounted for 15 of the 117 high court candidates (13 percent) and 30 of the 358 appellate court candidates (8 percent). * Candidates of an ethnic or racial minority had an 84 percent success rate—nearly 20 points higher than the 67 percent success rate of non-minority candidates. * 40 of the 45 minority candidates were incumbents who sought reelection, 38 of whom won: 22 won retention, seven won contested races, and nine won uncontested races. * Ethnic or racial minority winners raised an average of $203,403 in their contested elections, comparable to the $215,432 average raised by non-minority winners of contested races. * _1_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overview-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_so urce=nimsp-contacts#footnoteref1) . “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000–2009,” pg. 14, available at (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=435) _http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=435_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=435) , accessed Oct. 6, 2011. * _2_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overview-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_so urce=nimsp-contacts#footnoteref2) . Monique Garcia, “State Supreme Court Justice Wins Retention Battle,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 2, 2010, available from (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-02/news/ct-elect-kilbride-20101102_1_jury-awards-retention-battle-constitutionality-of-state-law) _http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-02/news/ct-elect-kilbride-20101102_1_ju ry-awards-retention-battle-constitutionality-of-state-law_ (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-02/news/ct-elect-kilbride-20101102_1_jury-awards- retention-battle-constitutionality-of-state-law) , accessed Jan. 30, 2012. This report was posted on April 06, 2012 by Linda Casey. Let us know what you thought! Click _here_ (http://www.followthemoney.org/Contact/index.phtml?dvd=7&e=/press/ReportView.phtml?r=485&utm_campaign=overvi ew-of-judicial-election-09-10-e-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_source=nimsp-cont acts&t=Money+in+Judicial+Elections,+2009-2010) and give us some feedback. ================================================================= Action LA Network Actions for Peace & Justice Everyday!_http://www.ActionLA.org_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) National Immigrant Solidarity Network _http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org_ (http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/) Action LA Network _http://www.ActionLA.org_ (http://www.actionla.org/) Peace NO War Network _http://www.PeaceNOWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) Activist Video Service _http://www.ActivistVideo.org_ (http://www.activistvideo.org/) New York: (212)330-8172 Los Angeles: (213)403-0131 Washington D.C.: (202)595-8990 Chicago: (773)942-2268 Please join the Action LA news litserv, send e-mail to: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Please consider making a donation to the important work of Peace NO War Network, Action LA Network, National Immigrant Solidarity Network Send check pay to: Action LA Network/AFGJ Action LA Network P.O. Box 751 South Pasadena, CA 91031-0751 (All donations are tax deductible) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
