Heavy campaign spending and special-interest group involvement in some states, along with an historic presidential election provided the backdrop for 2008 judicial races.  For the first time in recent memory, three incumbent Chief Justices (Mississippi, West Virginia and Michigan) were unseated.  Judicial campaign oversight committees were active and visible in states where judicial elections were held. The following are some highlights from the work of  active committees in the 2008 judicial elections: 

Alabama:  The Alabama Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee intervened in a controversial Supreme Court race after the State Bar’s request that both candidates meet with the Committee’s Chair to discuss the increasing use of negative campaigning. The Committee Chair met with both candidates to reinforce the importance of civility and tone in the election.   

Georgia:  Most candidates for the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to abide by a “civility affirmation;” one candidate declined stating the voters need to know where candidates stand on issues.  The Georgia Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns stressed the need to balance what was needed by voters to make an informed choice and “not committing to certain issues that might come before the candidate as a sitting judge.”

Kentucky:  A Supreme Court candidate’s campaign sign was alleged to mislead the voters because it asserted that he already was “Chief Judge” of the Supreme Court.  The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee reviewed the campaign sign and issued a press release. The candidate changed the language on the sign.

Louisiana:  Educational seminars conducted by the Louisiana Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee were held throughout the state on the ethics of judicial campaigns during the 2008 season. The Committee also issued a number of press releases and official opinions finding that candidate statements had violated the state’s judicial canons.

West Virginia:  The West Virginia State Bar Judicial Election Campaign Advertising Commission publicly commented on two complaints in 2008.  A candidate who successfully challenged an incumbent circuit judge was criticized for running ads that implied he – the challenger - had been endorsed by the West Virginia State Bar.  The State Bar does not endorse candidates. In another race, an unsuccessful challenger was also criticized for his ads. 

Washington State:  In its first year in operation, the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns’ candidate pledge was signed by all but one candidate.  The Committee stated that the candidates’ strong participation exemplified their commitment to the integrity of the judiciary and the importance of distinguishing judicial elections and campaign conduct from that of other elected offices.  The Committee also responded to a number of candidate complaints, and was asked by a Supreme Court candidate to review his ad before it was released.

Tell Us About Your Committee:

If your committee was active during the 2008 elections, we’d like to hear from you!  Please drop us a note and let us know:

• What election year activities did your committee engage in?
• Did you receive and handle any candidate complaints?
• Did you issue any public statements or press releases? 
• What kind of media coverage did the committee and its activities receive?
• Did your committee create a post-election report?

If your committee did not write a post-election report, the Ad Hoc Committee encourages you to write a summary report of your activities.  Reports of this kind are invaluable to other jurisdictions, particularly those considering starting a new committee.  Keeping an official record is also valuable for future election-year efforts in your own jurisdiction.