One of the major challenges facing judicial campaign oversight committees, especially at the start of an active election cycle, is managing controversy.  Controversy arises not only out of the individual judicial campaigns, but is also generated simply by the committee’s existence.

As committees become more active and visible, they can anticipate and prepare to respond to three main types of attacks on committees that are now commonplace:

1. Criticism about the composition of the committee.
2. Behind-the-scene pressure on certain candidates from political parties, special- interest groups and/or third-parties to not participate in the committee’s process or sign the affirmation.
3. A concerted public relations campaign against the committee’s efforts – particularly through claims that the committee is the “speech police.”

“The running of the public relations campaign against your committee – the “speech police”…this is the one that comes up almost every single time and requires some thinking through.” 
~ Jesse Rutledge, NCSC Vice-President of External Affairs

Watch more from Jesse Rutledge (former Director of Communications and Deputy Director of Justice at Stake, and current National Center for State Courts’ Vice-President of External Affairs) as he discusses how to respond to “speech police attacks” at the 2008 National Workshop on Effective Judicial Campaign Oversight Committees.

Your committee can also anticipate and prepare for some types of controversy with these strategies (from the How-to Handbook on Effective Judicial Campaign Oversight Committees):

• Maintain a diverse, impartial and respected committee membership.  For example, you will not be perceived as non-partisan if you are not bipartisan.
• Educate candidates about appropriate campaigning.
• Ask judicial candidates to sign affirmations of ethical conduct.
• Resolve campaign disputes and improprieties quietly where appropriate, and with transparency where necessary.
• Require that allegations and responses be submitted in writing.
• Invite both the complaining party and respondent to committee hearings to present their cases;
• Require a super-majority of the committee before publicly criticizing a candidate or campaign.
• Discuss campaign improprieties through a designated spokesperson.
• Develop and nurture an ongoing relationship with the media.