"x x x.
You're probably aware that many state judges are elected -- they have to run for their judgeship like mayors have to run for their positions. But admit it: it's likely not something you think about too much. But just like any other politician, to pay for a campaign, judges need campaign donations, too.
But consider the uncomfortable implications after an election, where a judge is hearing a case that might affect one of his donors. Well, it's that very definitive conflict of interest that's in the latest cross hairs of John Oliver this week:
At least $18 million in contributions was spent on state Supreme Court campaigns in 2014, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Additionally, at least $5.2 was million spent by state high court candidates on television ads, with some candidates spending exorbitant amounts on an individual basis.
What practical effect does this have? As Oliver pointed out: "The problem with an elected judiciary is sometimes the right decision is neither easy nor popular. And yet, campaigns force judges to look over their shoulder on every ruling."
And indeed, Oliver's claims are backed up in recent research. A new study shows that spending on television ads attacking opposing judicial candidates as “soft-on-crime” television impact more than just the election. Researchers from the Emory Law School and the American Constitution Society examined more than 3,000 criminal cases across 32 states from 2008 to 2013 and found that the more television ads in state supreme court races, the more rulings against criminal defendants.
At a glance, this essentially means that unchecked money funneled into judicial elections gives prospective judges more of a competitive edge against one another, ultimately lending a skewed incentive to the rulings they hand down as they follow through on the promises they made to their contributors. This point is driven home in numerous examples in Oliver's most recent show, like this one, with a prospective judge declaring that it is "my privilege to sentence you to life in prison without parole." "Wait, it's your privilege?" Oliver follows up, "at best, it's your duty," he says, drawing an unsettling parallel to an overexcited proctologist.
x x x."
