John Broderick, the chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, railed against the infusion of money into state judicial politics from special interest groups Wednesday.
While Broderick, who spoke at the Daniel Webster Legal Society's annual Gordon Lecture in the Rockefeller Center, did not run for office himself, he feared that in the 38 states that do hold elections, these groups would wield undue influence over judges.
In the past few years, spending on state judicial elections has increased rapidly, as special interest groups, law firms and political parties donate to campaigns. Judicial elections in some states attract more capital than Senate elections do. Ohio's judicial candidates collectively spent $6 million in their 2001 bid for an open state supreme court seat. More recently, the 2004 race to fill an empty seat on the Illinois State Supreme Court attracted $10 million.
Broderick cited statistics from the 2001-2002 election season, when only six winners of judicial seats were outspent by their opponents, as evidence for the heavy impact of money on the outcome of elections.
"What are these people buying exactly?" he asked.
The money from special interest groups and political parties that finance judicial campaigns will result in a biased judicial branch whose members feel obligated to rule in favor of those who donated, Broderick said.
In a poll conducted by Justice at Stake, four percent of judges said political donations have a great deal of influence on their decisions, 22 percent said it had some influence and 20 percent said it had little influence, Broderick said.
"People like judges to not only be fair and impartial but appear fair and impartial. People are running as pro-gun, anti-abortion candidates," Broderick said. "Politics is sweeping into the one place it has no place, and it will affect your lives."
One thing Broderick left out of his speech was the legality of recent New Hampshire legislation to restrict alcohol consumption. The laws, which illegalized internal possession in 2003 and illegalizes house parties in 2005, have put increased pressure on Dartmouth and the local police to pursue students who drink on campus.
When asked about the issues in an interview with The Dartmouth, Broderick declined to state his opinion.
"I have no stance," Broderick said. "If a case comes to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, then we will take a look at these issues."
Broderick did express concern about the increasingly expensive legal system. Higher costs, he said, keep attorney representation out of reach for many people. He cited that in 40 percent of Supreme Court cases, one party represents itself. In civil cases that number rises to 85 percent.
"There are more lawyers in New Hampshire, and fewer people who can afford them," Broderick said. "How many people do you know who can afford $200 to $600 per hour?"
Broderick advocated increased citizen involvement in repairing the legal system
"You should get involved. Fix [the legal system]'s problems and improve its strengths," Broderick said.
