No. 2 in a Series on Mass. Court System
Will Massachusetts Citizens Ever Be Able to Gain Control of Their Courts?
            Our story last Wednesday demonstrated to Margaret Marshall personally that she must stay friendly with the three Associate Justices in her court that she's been able to control so far.
            However, it appears that she's not going to be able to accomplish that. One of the six Associate Justices may be ready to bolt, which would make the alignment  4-2 against her.
            Meanwhile, she continues to damage our state with her obsession for gay marriage. No one appears to dispute anymore that she is seriously damaging our court system.

Will It Really Help to Remove Judge Marshall and a Few Others?
           But will it really help to just remove a few of the present judges, Marshall included? How can we make our courts responsive?
            We posed that question to our founder, Atty. J. Edward Pawlick, who was a successful trial lawyer in Pennsylvania for twelve years before moving here to found Lawyers Weekly.
            He replied that Massachusetts is indeed unique in being one of the very few states in the country that has terrible courts. When he first arrived here in 1972, he could not believe how badly the judges were treated with no secretaries or clerical help in their courtrooms and with disgraceful, dilapidated courthouses in which to work.
            The model that both legal scholars and practicing lawyers use to compare their courts with other states is found at the "National Center for State Courts." (www.ncsconline.org)         

The Following Fact Sheet Is Provided by the "National Center for State Courts"

Fact Sheet on Judicial Selection Methods in the States

State High Courts:
For state high courts (which are called supreme courts in 48 states) a total of 38 states have some type of judicial elections. The breakdown of selection systems for state high courts is as follows:

·  Seven (7) states have partisan elections (AL, IL, LA, NC, PA, TX, WV; All judges in both Illinois and Pennsylvania run in uncontested retention elections for additional terms after winning a first term through a contested partisan election)

·  Fourteen (14) states have nonpartisan elections (AR, GA, ID, KY, MI, MN, MS, MT, NV, ND, OH, OR, WA, WI; Ohio and Michigan have nonpartisan general elections, but political parties are involved with the nomination of candidates, who frequently run with party endorsements)

·  Seventeen (17) states have uncontested retention elections after initial appointment (AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN, IA, KS, MD, MO, NE, NM, OK, SD, TN, UT, WY; All judges in New Mexico are initially appointed, face a contested partisan election for a full term, and then run in uncontested retention elections for additional terms)

·  The remaining 12 states grant life tenure or use reappointment of some type for their highest courts (CT, DE, HI, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, VA, SC)

Intermediate Appellate Courts:

Thirty-nine (39) states have intermediate appellate courts. The breakdown of selection systems for intermediate appellate courts is as follows:

·  Six (6) states have partisan elections (AL, IL, LA, NC, PA, TX; see note above on IL and PA)

·  Eleven (11) states have nonpartisan elections (AR, GA, ID, KY, MI, MN, MS, OH, OR, WA, WI; see note above on MI and OH)

·  Fourteen (14) states have uncontested retention elections after initial appointment

(AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN, IA, KS, MO, NE, NM, OK, TN, UT; see note above on NM)

·  Eight (8) states grant life tenure or use reappointment of some type for their

intermediate appellate courts (CT, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, SC, VA)

·  Eleven (11) states do not have intermediate appellate courts (DE, ME, MT, NV, NH, ND, RI, SD, VT, WV, WY)

Trial Courts:

A total of 39 states hold elections—whether partisan, nonpartisan, or uncontested retention elections—for trial courts of general jurisdiction. The breakdown of selection systems for trial courts of general jurisdiction is as follows:

·  Eight (8) states have partisan elections for all general jurisdiction trial court judges (AL, IL, LA, NY, PA, TN, TX, WV; see note above on IL and PA)

·  Twenty (20) states have nonpartisan elections for all general jurisdiction trial court judges (AR, CA, FL, GA, ID, KY, MD, MI, MN, MS, MT, NV, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, SD, WA, WI)

·  Seven (7) states have uncontested retention elections for all general jurisdiction

trial courts (AK, CO, IA, NE, NM, UT, WY; see note above on NM)

·  Four (4) states use different types of elections—partisan, nonpartisan, or

retention—for general jurisdiction trial courts in different counties or judicial

districts (AZ, IN, KS, MO)

·  Eleven (11) states grant life tenure or use reappointment of some type for all general jurisdiction trial courts (CT, DE, HI, ME, MA, NH, NJ, RI, SC, VT, VA)

Money in Judicial Elections:

            Candidate fundraising: State supreme court candidates raised a total of $45.6 million during the 2000 judicial elections, a 61 percent increase over the amount raised by candidates in 1998.
            Lawyers and business interests account for 49 percent of all contributions to supreme court candidates. Partisan judicial elections are by far the most expensive, with candidates raising an average of $380,724 in 2000 (as opposed to an average of $107,388 raised by supreme court candidates in nonpartisan elections). (Source: “The New Politics of Judicial Elections,” Brennan Center for Justice at NYU and National Institute on Money in State Politics, published by the Justice at Stake Campaign, February 2002.)
            Interest group activity: Trial lawyers and business groups are spending more on unregulated “issue advertisements” in judicial elections. The Litigation Fairness Campaign, sponsored by the U.S.Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, hopes to raise $25 million, primarily for television advertisements, in at least eight states holding supreme court elections in 2002. Trial lawyer organizations and unions in “battleground” judicial election states are expected to spend significant amounts, as well.
            Because expenditures by groups that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate are not subject to disclosure, precise figures on interest group spending are not available. (Source: Peter H. Stone, “The Blitz to Elect Business-Friendly Judges,” National Journal, February 16, 2002.)

Public Confidence in the System:

·  Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters, and 26 percent of state judges, believe that campaign contributions made to judges have at least some influence on their decisions.

·  Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters—including nearly 90 percent of African-American voters—feel that “there are two systems of justice in the U.S.—one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.”

·  Nine in 10 voters, and 8 in 10 state judges, say they are quite concerned about special interest groups buying advertising to influence the outcomes of judicial elections.

(Source: Justice at Stake Campaign, National Surveys of American Voters and State Judges, October 2001 – January 2002. Available at www.justiceatstake.org)

Coming Tomorrow: We will explain why Atty. Pawlick found the courts in Pennsylvania to be excellent while he was a trial/general practice lawyer there for twelve years before moving to this state to found Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly --- even though Pennsylvania went against almost everything that Harvard Law School teaches. It's ironic that the Mass. courts are now a disaster, according to Margaret Marshall's own panel.