JAS Supreme Court Citations

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

A dissenting opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens cited Justice at Stake in discussing the impact of special-interest spending on state Supreme Court elections:

“[T]he consequences of today’s holding will not be limited to the legislative or executive context. The majority of the States select their judges through popular elections. At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, see, e.g., O’Connor, Justice for Sale, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 15, 2007, p. A25; Brief for Justice at Stake et al. as Amici Curiae 2, the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races. Perhaps “Caperton motions” will catch some of the worst abuses. This will be small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering even if they believe such limits to be critical to maintaining the integrity of their judicial systems."

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)

 
A dissent written by Justice David Souter cited the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2006. Also an article co-authored by Justice at Stake Executive Direct Bert Brandenburg: 

“State judicial campaigns have become flush with cash as well, with state supreme court candidates raising over $30 million in the 2005–2006 cycle. Sample et al., The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2006, p. 16(2007), available at www.justiceatstake.org/files/NewPoliticsofJudicialElections2006.pdf. In a single 2004 judicial election in Illinois,the candidates raised a breathtaking $9.3 million, an amount the winner called “ ‘obscene.’ ” The Justice-elect wondered, “ ‘How can people have faith in the system?’ ” Moyer & Brandenburg, Big Moneyand Special Interests are Warping Judicial Elections, Legal Times, Oct.9, 2006, p. 50 (quoting Justice Lloyd Karmeier of the Illinois SupremeCourt). According to polling data, the fear that people will lose trust inthe system is well founded.” 

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)

A concurring opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited a Justice at Stake survey: 

“Even if judges were able to refrain from favoring donors, the mere possibility that judges' decisions may be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributors is likely to undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary. See Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc., and American Viewpoint, National Public Opinion Survey Frequency Questionnaire 4 (2001), (available at www.justiceatstake.org/files/JASNationalSurveyResults.pdf ) (describing survey results indicating that 76 percent of registered voters believe that campaign contributions influence judicial decisions) …”

To view the Caperton and Citizen's United Amicus Briefs Justice at Stake has submitted to the Supreme Court, click here.