Press Release: Kilbride Race Was Nation’s Costliest Retention Vote in 25 Years, Report Says
Illinois High-Court Campaign Also Cited for ‘Outrageous’ TV Ad Featuring Actors Portraying Convicts
Contact:
Charles Hall, (202) 588-9454, chall@justiceatstake.org
Whitney Woodward, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform,
(312) 335-1767, whitney@ilcampaign.org
A campaign to unseat Justice Thomas Kilbride from the Illinois Supreme Court triggered the nation’s costliest retention election in 25 years, and the Illinois race also produced “probably the most outrageous” high-court TV ad in the United States in 2010, a new report by three nonpartisan legal reform groups discloses.
The Illinois Supreme Court election cost almost $3.5 million, with Kilbride raising $2.8 million and national business groups, angered by the judge’s vote to help strike down a ceiling on certain medical-malpractice awards, financing an unsuccessful $688,000 challenge. Retention elections, in which only the incumbent appears on the ballot and the public votes “yes” or “no” on whether to grant another term, usually are low-money campaigns, the report noted.
It was the most expensive retention election in Illinois history, and the most expensive nationally since California Chief Justice Rose Bird and two colleagues were voted out in 1986. Illinois led a nationwide money explosion in retention elections in 2010, the report added. In Illinois, Iowa, Alaska and Colorado, total spending approached $4.9 million, compared with $2.2 million for all retention elections nationally in the entire 2000-2009 decade.
Nationally, state high-court candidates and special-interest groups spent $38.4 million in 2009-10, and a growing portion of that money was spent by a small number of secretive special-interest groups. The 2010 high court elections were followed by a ferocious series of legislative attacks against the nation’s court system, the report said.
“Illinois’s 2010 retention election showed that no state is safe from special-interest attempts to hijack the courts,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake. “Previously, this kind of runaway spending was only seen in partisan elections for judges. More than ever, reforms are needed to keep campaign cash out of the courtroom.”
“Across the nation, spending in judicial campaigns is on the rise, and Illinois has been ground zero, as this report shows,” said Whitney Woodward, policy associate with the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.
“With special interest money in judicial contests increasing, Illinois must take steps to maintain public confidence in the judiciary, such as providing alternative ways for candidates to fund their campaigns and setting clear standards for when elected judges must step away from cases involving campaign supporters and opponents.”
“The Kilbride retention race was akin to a shadow boxing match,” said Cynthia Canary, former director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a current JAS Board member. “Significant funds came from the key players on either side of the tort reform debate. However, it was a nasty and misleading advertising campaign on crime which set the tone of the election, forcing the incumbent justice, Thomas Kilbride, to take to the airwaves to defend his reputation in this opponent-less contest.”
The report, entitled “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2009-10,” was released today by the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Institute on Money and State Politics. It is available at www.newpoliticsreport.org.
The report cited two related ads, one appearing on TV and the other online, that featured actors playing the role of convicted thugs. In the online version, the “thugs” recounted the violent details of their crimes, then said Kilbride had sided with them to vote against law enforcement and victims.
Although the ad focused on crime, the report noted that its sponsors included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a mouthpiece for the National Association of Manufacturers. In response, Kilbride leaned heavily on $1.4 million in support from the Illinois Democratic Party, which received about $1.5 million in donations from plaintiffs’ lawyers in the months leading up to the election. All told, Kilbride raised $2.8 million and was the single biggest spender nationally on TV judicial election ads.
While Kilbride retained his seat with 65 percent of the vote, three justices in neighboring Iowa were swept off the bench by a well-funded special-interest campaign targeting a single controversial decision on same-sex marriage.
“The story of the 2009-2010 elections, and their aftermath in state legislatures in 2011, reveals a coalescing national campaign that seeks to intimidate America’s state judges into becoming accountable to money and ideologies instead of the constitution and the law,” the report warns. “In its full context, the most recent election cycle poses some of the gravest threats yet to fair and impartial justice in America.”
A series of “New Politics” reports since 2000 has highlighted skyrocketing special-interest spending that has altered the face of state Supreme court contests and eroded public confidence in fair and impartial courts.
According to a national poll released today, 83 percent believe that campaign contributions have a “great deal” or “some” influence on a judge’s decisions; 93% believe judges should not hear cases involving major financial supporters; and 84% believe that all contributions to a judicial candidate should be “quickly disclosed and posted to a web site.”
The total of $38.4 million spent in 2009-10 was somewhat less than the amount spent in the last non-presidential election cycle, in 2005-06. However, $16.8 million was spent on TV advertising, making 2009-10 the costliest non-presidential cycle for TV spending in judicial elections. Of that total, $3.35 million was spent on TV advertising in Pennsylvania.
Across the country, outside groups continued their hostile attempts to take over state high court elections, pumping in nearly 30 percent of all money spent – far higher than four years earlier.
The aftermath of the 2010 election season nationwide also was troubling: Judicial and legislative elections sparked an unprecedented post-election attack on state courts. This included challenges to merit selection systems for picking judges, a campaign to roll back public financing, and threats to impeach judges for unpopular decisions.
“Cumulatively, these attacks represented a historically significant concerted attack on judicial independence, and on various reforms intended to reduce the influence of money and politics on state courts,” the report warned. “The season raised the distinct possibility – or likelihood – that the attacks will resume as soon as statehouses reopen in 2012.”
About the Organizations
Justice at Stake Campaign
The Justice at Stake Campaign is a nonpartisan national partnership working to keep our courts fair, impartial and free from special-interest and partisan agendas. In states across America, Campaign partners work to protect our courts through public education, grass-roots organizing and reform. The Campaign provides strategic coordination and brings organizational, communications and research resources to the work of its partners and allies at the national, state and local levels.
The Brennan Center for Justice
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to presidential power in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector.
The National Institute on Money in State Politics
The National Institute on Money in State Politics collects, publishes, and analyzes data on campaign money in state elections. The database dates back to the 1990 election cycle for some states and is comprehensive for all 50 states since the 1999–2000 election cycle. The Institute has compiled a 50-state summary of state supreme court contribution data from 1989 through the present, as well as complete, detailed databases of campaign contributions for all state high-court judicial races beginning with the 2000 elections.
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization conducting research and advocating reforms to promote public participation in government, address the role of money in politics and encourage integrity, accountability and transparency in government. The late U.S. Sen. Paul Simon and former Lt. Gov. Bob Kustra founded ICPR in 1997.
###
