WA: Another try at public financing supreme court races

In 2010, public financing for supreme court races appeared to be on its way to reality when it ran aground a procedural hurdle. The 2010 version would pay for the financing via a $3 fee on civil case filings, something that Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, as President of the Senate, ruled was a tax. Tax increases in Washington require a two-thirds majority of the legislature (fees require a simple majority, h/t Spokesman Review)

Despite not being able to achieve the two-thirds vote in 2010, the bill is back (SB 5010) and being sponsored by Senator-elect Scott White who, while a member of the 2010 House, sponsored the same public financing bill in that chamber.

KY: Public financing for judicial elections?

Perhaps in anticipation of an expected 2012 Supreme Court election in the state, or as a reaction to judicial elections in other states, the Kentucky legislature will be considering a bill (HB 21) this year to create a public financing system for all judges in the state, paid for in part by a $25 annual assessment on all members of the Kentucky Bar Association. If adopted, Kentucky’s public financing system for judicial races might be the most expansive in the nation. Similar programs in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and New Mexico are limited to appellate courts only. A fourth program (West Virginia) adopted in 2010 is limited to only the state’s 2012 Supreme Court race.

Judicial Vacancy Commissions

Two states, both having dealt recently with contentious elections, are actively debating the use of Judicial Vacancy Commissions. While they share similar names, the two are dramatically different.

Alabama’s version builds on its pre-existing system where counties are allowed to opt-in into a system that allows for interim judicial vacancies to be filled by a commission that submits names to the Governor. The selected individual serves only the remaining years left in the term, but may run for a full term in the regular, partisan election system. So far, only 8 of Alabama’s 67 counties have the program, with a special constitutional amendment required for each county. However HB 443 would amend the state’s constitution to provide for the use of such commissions in all counties of the state. It was approved as amended by the House Judiciary Committee 2/11/10.

While Alabama’s version is obligatory (the Governor must select from the list of names given by the commission to fill the temporary vacancy), West Virginia’s proposal is explicitly advisory only. HB 4036 and SB 223 would create a Judicial Vacancy Advisory Commission to submit 2-5 names to the Governor when a vacancy occurred in any judicial office. The Governor would be under no obligation to make use of the list, but the list and most of the proceedings of the commission would be open to the public. The House version was approved by that chamber on 2/24/10 and is currently on the Senate floor, having been approved by the Senate Judiciary¬†(3/8/10), and Finance (3/11/10) committees. Probably because of the advance of the House version, the Senate bill has not made it out of committee.

MN: One step closer to retention elections

Earlier today the Senate Rules Committee approved SB 70, a bill to establish retention elections for judges. The bill also expands terms of office from six to eight years and creates a judicial performance commission. the commission must issue in the year a judge seeks retention ean valuation of “well-qualified,” “qualified,” or “unqualified”. The bill now goes to the Senate Finance Committee.

MN: Contribution limits for judicial candidates pass key committee

SB 80, which would sets contributions limits for judicial candidates, made it out of the Senate in 2009 and was today approved by the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee. The committee made some amendments but retained the Senate’s limits: $2,000 in an election year and $500 in other years. It is now on the House floor and, if approved, would have to be re-approved by the Senate.

Public financing for WA Supreme Court races: On the way or out of the question?

Washington State’s proposed public financing system for their Supreme Court elections advances out of its first House Committee, over a year after introduction. HB 1738 of 2009 had its first hearing in March 2009 and lay in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs until February 2010 when it finally passed and sent on to House Ways & Means. Its Senate counterpart, SB 5912, had a similar resuscitation, finally making it out of its Committee on Government Operations & Elections February 4. According to the Spokesman-Review’s blog, the state’s Lieutenant Governor has ruled, as President of the Senate, the additional $3 charge for filing fees is a tax. Under Washington law, taxes need a two-thirds majority of both chambers, while fees require a simple majority.

Mississippi Judicial Selection: Which way will it go?

Mississippi has seven different types of courts. Five of these use nonpartisan elections (Supreme, Appeal, Circuit, Chancery, County), one uses a straight appointment (Municipal) and one continues to use partisan elections (Justice). Currently, the state’s legislature is considering several bills that take entirely different courses of action for these judicial races.

HB 304 and HB 409 would change Justice Court races, along with those for chancery clerk, circuit clerk,  and all other county offices, into nonpartisan races.

HB 460 and HB 494 on the other hand would convert all nonpartisan judicial elections into partisan ones.

Meanwhile, HCR 22 would change the Supreme Court into a modified appointment system. Under the constitutional amendment, justices would be nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. After serving their full term, they would be subject to a yes/no retention election.

It remains to be seen what changes, if any, the legislature opts to make.