Public Campaign is fortunate to have two interns joining our staff ths summer, Catherine Melsheimer and Anne Smedinghoff, who analyzed two recent reports from FollowtheMoney.org about the rising costs of judicial campaigns, associated rise in more partisan and combative elections, and how these trends call for a public financing option (as implemented in North Carolina and under consideration elsewhere). Read on for a summary of the findings of these reports. Concerns regarding high court judicial races came to light during the 2006 election cycle. The standard fears about money in politics, electoral competitiveness, gender equality, and ethnic diversity of candidates are exacerbated by concerns over the significant role judges play in our society. In judicial elections, those elected are not simply citizens’ representatives in Congress or in the executive office, but the people who have the power to uphold the Constitution and regulate society. Two reports recently issued by FollowtheMoney.Org address the prevalent issues of diversity on the bench and judicial campaign financing. “Gender, Ethnic Diversity, and Fundraising in Judicial Races” (pdf) compares gender and ethnic diversity of candidates in high court judicial races, and addresses the underlying fact that incumbents have the advantage regardless of other factors. In the 2005-2006 general election cycle women and minority candidates won 79% of their races. These races included partisan, non-partisan, and retention races. Of the 115 judicial candidates in the 2006 general election, women made up approximately 30% of the candidates, while minority candidates were 12%. The importance of incumbency and its connection to fundraising is most extensively highlighted when examining the partisan judicial races that occurred in Alabama, Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas. In partisan races the amount of fundraising rivals that of gubernatorial and federal races. There were 31 candidates running in these races, however only three were minority candidates and only six were female. Of the minority candidates, only the incumbent candidate won his race. Both candidates who lost raised significantly less funds than their opponents ($25,900 opposed to $481,000 and $503,000 opposed to $999,000). One candidate ran against an incumbent and the other ran for an open seat. The minority candidate who did win was an incumbent, and his opponent did not raise any money. Of the women candidates four out of the six won their elections. Three were incumbents, one of them was unopposed and the other two raised $1.8 million and $677,000 which was significantly more than any of their opponents. The fourth victor, raised $2.6 million to unseat the incumbent.In examining non-partisan races, the amount of money raised was still significant. There were races in eleven states. Of the six minority candidates; the only candidate who lost was also the only non-incumbent. He raised $71,200 compared to the incumbents’ $176, 700. The average amount of money raised was $251,536 for a non-partisan race. Out of 15 women candidates, ten won their races, six of whom were incumbents. Of the non-incumbents, two defeated incumbents and two gained open seats. Mary Noble, a candidate running against an incumbent managed to win despite the fact that she raised 2/3 less than the sitting judge. The other incumbent who was unseated by a female candidate was outspent by $100,000. However, the race for an open seat in North Carolina two female opponents accepted public funding; however Robin Hudson raised approximately $8,000 more than her opponent Ann Marie Calabria and narrowly won the election. In retention races, fundraising is not typical considering that it is an up or down vote of whether the judge will keep his or her seat. However in the 2006 election cycle 33 out of 38 candidates raised campaign money. In Pennsylvania, two judges raised $356,758 (Justice Sandra Shultz Newman) and $587,970 (Justice Russell Nigro) in campaigns to retain their seats because they were targeted for defeat by voters. Newman narrowly retained her seat and Nigro narrowly lost his. These races show how money has infiltrated the retention races where historically it was not an issue. Once money has infiltrated these races, it is spent in a few significant ways. According to t“The New Politics of Judicial Races” (pdf), he 2006 elections saw an unprecedented explosion of television ads for judicial campaigns. The number of states in which ads appeared, the negativity of the ads, and the amount of money spent on them all increased, with pro-business and special interest groups leading the charge. In 2000, judicial campaign ads ran in less than 25% of states with contested Supreme Court elections, yet by 2006, they ran in a whopping 91% of these states. Special interest groups have also become more demanding, questioning judicial candidates and insisting they make public their views on specific issues. Many judges have refused to answer these questionnaires. Judge Peter Webster, First District Courts of Appeal, Florida, wrote in a letter to the President of the Florida Family Policy Council, “My experiences lead me to conclude without reservation that questionnaires such as that which I have received from your organization are ill-conceived. . . I say this because such questionnaires create the impression in the minds of voters that judges are no different from politicians – that they decide cases based on their personal biases and prejudices. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.” Judicial candidates who were quick to promote their personal views usually did not fare as well as candidates who ran more traditional campaigns. One example is North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Rachel Lea Hunter, who called a black Congressional candidate an “Uncle Tom,” and whose website listed specific stances on the Iraq war and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Hunter only garnered 37% of the vote. Her opponent, Justice Mark Martin, refrained from speaking out on personal values and rather promoted his credentials and experience.The problem with the way judicial races are currently run is that the impartiality of judges is compromised once they are elected. The judges on the bench are the same as those who received enormous sums of money for their campaigns from special interests. Proposed ways to solve this problem, such as merit selection systems, also meet sharp criticism as many argue that appointive systems favor only the well-connected elite. A system of public financing for judicial elections reconciles both of these concerns. Public financing removes the ever-growing special interest money from campaigns, yet also lets the voters pick the judges. North Carolina and New Mexico have realized that such a system makes sense – both have adopted full public financing of judicial elections. Legislators in other states such as Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, and Washington have also proposed similar systems.