Judicial races in Southeast, nation prove contentious, costly

The midterm 2006 judicial elections saw judicial campaign contribution and advertising records smashed in numerous states holding high court elections.

Voters went to the polls in 22 contested Supreme Court races in 10 states on Nov. 7. Campaigns for seats on America’s high courts have turned into expensive, contentious and often partisan brawls in many states, and that trend accelerated this year as numerous states broke records in campaign fundraising and television advertising, according to the nonpartisan Justice at Stake Campaign.

The group found that spending on television advertising by candidates, political parties, or third party interest groups eclipsed $16 million. Ads appeared in 10 of 11 states with a contested Supreme Court election this year (compared to only 1 of every 4 states in 2000), according to data supplied by the Brennan Center for Justice, a Justice at Stake partner.

Candidate fundraising records were set in at least four of the 11 states, and at least eight high court campaigns saw combined totals climb past $1 million.

The most expensive Supreme Court campaign of 2006 was the contest for Alabama Chief Justice. Incumbent Chief Justice Drayton Nabers withstood a primary challenge from fellow Republican Justice Tom Parker, but was defeated in the general election by Democrat Sue Bell Cobb. Cobb becomes the lone Democrat on Alabama’s high court. Combined, the three candidates reported over $6.7 million in contributions through late October. Since 1993, candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court have raised over $52 million, tops in the nation.

In Georgia, millions were spent on TV ads in one of the most negative judicial campaigns. The Safety and Prosperity Coalition, an interest group that received funding from an arm of the National Association of Manufacturers, reported raising over $1.8 million in an effort to defeat Justice Carol Hunstein. In one of their ads, the SPC said: “Carol Hunstein … voted to throw out evidence that convicted a cocaine trafficker … [she] even ignored extensive case law and overruled a jury to free a savage rapist.”

In response, Hunstein’s campaign aired an ad attacking her opponent, Mike Wiggins: “Mike Wiggins was sued by his own mother for taking her money. He sued his only sister. She said he threatened to kill her while she was eight months pregnant.” Justice Hunstein won re-election to the Georgia Supreme Court easily. She’s the first judicial candidate in Georgia to raise over $1 million.

Despite decisively outspending trial lawyers around the country, business groups were dealt a series of defeats, reversing victories in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles. Data gathered by the Brennan Center for Justice indicated that, through Oct. 22, 95 percent of third-party spending on television ads in high court races was paid for by business groups.

The American Taxpayers Alliance, which has received funding in the past from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had backed Nabers in Alabama. The American Justice Partnership made donations in Georgia, Oregon and Illinois, and went 0 for 3 in those states. In Washington, business groups failed to elect any of their preferred candidates. Only in Ohio did business-backed candidates win.

North Carolina, Kentucky
Despite a last minute advertising campaign by a 527 group backed by trial attorneys and major Democratic Party donors, North Carolina’s system of public financing of appellate court campaigns appeared to show that candidates can run solid campaigns without huge injections of money from national special interests. Five of six winners at the appellate level used public financing.

The fear of an “extreme makeover” of the Kentucky judiciary did not come to pass. Though candidates for the Kentucky Supreme Court helped the state set a new fundraising record, in-state observers remarked on how civil most of the judicial races remained.

Editor’s Note: Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice and the Institute on Money in State Politics, plan to publish a fourth edition of their “New Politics of Judicial Elections” report in the first quarter of 2007.