One place where the public financing solution is seeing increased traction is in regards to judicial races, where the conflict between accepting campaign contributions and maintaining judicial impartiality is all the more clear. North Carolina has adopted it, Washington is thinking about it, and now legislators and citizen groups in Alabama and New York are weighing the option.  In the Birmingham News piece by Alabama Appleseed's John Pickens, the last decade and a half of steadily increasing costs to mount a successful campaign for the state Supreme Court is examined, with Pickens stating that:  Only the most naive among us would believe that such massive special-interest contributions have no effect on judicial decision-making. With each million contributed by special interests, the independence of our Supreme Court is diminished and the public perception that our Supreme Court is, or can be, fair and impartial is likewise diminished. Among the series of reforms he proposes is a public financing option, which New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is also pursuing, as detailed in the article on New York. It's clear judicial races have become a special interest money battleground - let's create a public financing option before the races get as out of control and their legislative counterparts.