Justice in Jeopardy

JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY REPORT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY The recommendations contained within this report do not reflect the official positions or policies of the American Bar Association. The recommendations will be presented to the ABA House of Delegates at its 2003 Annual Meeting for adoption as official policies of the ABA. JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY REPORT OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY PRINTING OF THIS REPORT IS MADE POSSIBLE WITH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF LEXISNEXIS, A DIVISION OF REED ELSEVIER INC. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY CHAIR Edward W. Madeira, Jr. Pepper Hamilton LLP Philadelphia, Pennsylvania HONORARY CO-CHAIRS Hon. Abner Mikva Hon. William S. Sessions University of Chicago Law School Holland & Knight, LLP Chicago, Illinois Washington, District of Columbia Members Julius Chambers Thomas W. Ross, Sr. Ferguson Stein Chambers Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation Charlotte, North Carolina Winston-Salem, North Carolina Henry C. Duques Stephen N. Zack First Data Corporation Boies Shiller Sarasota, Florida Miami, Florida George Frazza BOARD OF GOVERNORS LIAISON Patterson Belknap et al Jose C. Feliciano New York, New York Baker & Hostetler, LLP Cleveland, Ohio Representative Peter Gallego Texas House of Representatives REPORTER Austin, Texas Charles Gardner Geyh Indiana University School of Law Patricia Hynes Bloomington, Indiana Milberg Weiss et al David Giampetroni New York, New York Assistant to the Reporter Chief Justice Margaret Marshall ABA STAFF Supreme Judicial Court of Luke Bierman Massachusetts Director, ABA Justice Center Boston, Massachusetts Katy Englehart Staff Operations/Special Projects, Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips ABA Office of the President Supreme Court of Texas Eileen Gallagher Austin, Texas Director, ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements Barbara Roberts Seth Andersen Former Governor of Oregon Project Manager, ABA Standing Portland, Oregon Committee on Judicial Independence Marcia Kladder Associate Director, ABA Justice Center American Bar Association Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary Special Advisory Committee ABA Judicial Division Hispanic National Bar Association Hon. David Horowitz Duard D. Bradshaw Studio City, California Roderick Linton LLP Akron, Ohio ABA Section of Legal Education Dean Gene R. Nichol, Jr. League of Women Voters University of North Carolina School Patricia Brady of Law Springfield, Virginia Chapel Hill, North Carolina ABA Section Officers Conference ABA Section of Tort Trial and Bernard F. Ashe Insurance Practice Delmar, New York Michael E. Mone Esdaile, Barrett & Esdaile ABA Section of Litigation Boston, Massachusetts Michael J. Henke Vinson & Elkins American College of Trial Lawyers Washington, District of Columbia Benjamin H. Hill, III Hill Ward & Henderson PA United States Chamber of Tampa, Florida Commerce, Institute for Legal Reform Corporate Counsel James Wootton Louis L. Hoynes, Jr. Washington, District of Wyeth Law Department Columbia Madison, New Jersey ABA Standing Committee on Association of Trial Lawyers of Strategic Communications America Allan J. Tanenbaum Robert S. Peck AFC Enterprises, Inc. Center for Constitutional Litigation Atlanta, Georgia Washington, District of Columbia Defense Research Institute Richard T. Boyette Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog Raleigh, North Carolina Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………….vii Chair’s Introduction ..………………………………………………………………………….xii Opening ………………………………………………………………………………………….1 Commission Mandate .................................................................................................................6 I. Enduring Principles ...............................................................................................................7 Principle 1: Judges should uphold the rule of law .......................…....9 Principle 2: Judges should be independent......................................….10 Principal 3: Judges should be impartial ..............................................11 Principle 4: Judges should possess the appropriate temperament and character .........................................................................................12 Principle 5: Judges should possess the appropriate capabilities and credentials .…………………............................................................….12 Principle 6: Judges and the Judiciary should have the confidence of the public ..................................................................13 Principle 7: The judicial system should be racially diverse and reflective of the society it serves ............................................................14 Principle 8: Judges should be constrained to perform their duties in a manner that justifies public faith and confidence in the courts...…...14 II. Recent Developments .......................................................................................................….15 A. The Politicizing of State High Courts .................................................................….16 1. Trends Contributing to the Politicizing of State High Courts …..............17 a. The proliferation of controversial cases generally ..........................17 b. The rediscovery of state constitutions ..............................................18 c. Increases in appellate caseload and the interposition of intermediate appellate courts between trial courts and courts of last resort.......................................................................19 i d. The spread of the two-party system .................................................21 e. The emergence of a skeptical and conflicted public .......................21 f. The emergence of single-issue groups ............................................22 2. Specific Problems Arising out of Heightened Politicization of State High Courts .........................................................................................23 a. State high court election campaigns are increasingly focused on isolated issues of intense political interest .......................23 b. Judicial races are becoming more expensive ..........................…..28 c. The public believes that judges may be influenced by their contributors ............................................................................30 d. Some of the most politicized and misleading campaign related speech comes in the form of “issue advertising” developed by outside groups.................................34 e. The public is insufficiently familiar with judicial candidates, judicial qualifications, and the justice system ...........................................................................35 f. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White creates considerable uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality of ethical limits on judicial campaign speech .......................................................................37 g. Relationships between courts and legislatures have often been problematic .........................................................................40 Attempts to cut the judiciary’s budget ............................................................41 Attempts to curb to court jurisdiction .............................................................43 Attempts to remove judges from office ............................................................44 Constitutional amendments to constrain the courts’ constitutional interpretations ............................................................................45 The general sufficiency of judicial budgets and salaries ..........................…..46 B. The Lower Courts .....................................................................................................48 1. Increases in Trial Court Caseload Over Time.............................................51 ii 2. Changes in the Nature of Litigants…...........................................................53 a. The trend toward pro se litigation and its impact on the role of the trial judge .....……………………………………….53 b. Diversification of America and public confidence in the courts ………………………………………………..54 3. Changes in the Role of Courts .............................................................…....62 III. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................66 A. Preserving the Judiciary’s Institutional Legitimacy .............................................66 1. Judicial Qualifications, Training, and Evaluation .....................................67 The Commission recommends that states establish credible, neutral, non–partisan and diverse deliberative bodies to assess the qualifications of all judicial aspirants, so as to limit the candidate pool to those who are well qualified……………............................................................67 The Commission recommends that the judicial branch take primary responsibility for providing continuing judicial education, that continuing judicial education be required for all judges, and that state appropriations be sufficient to provide adequate funding for continuing judicial education programs…………………………………………………………......................70 The Commission recommends that Congress fully fund the State Justice Institute……………………………………………………………………........71 The Commission recommends that the states fully fund the National Center for State Courts...................................................................................................72

Load more