Question

What effects do state campaign finance rules have on judges and on the decisions they make?

Answer 1

In most states, judges who serve on state supreme courts are elected by the public. Unlike other elected officials, however, judges must be impartial in their decisions. There is concern among some policymakers, legal observers and others that judicial decisions may be affected by donations to judges’ election campaigns. That concern has grown as spending on judicial elections, which generally involve relatively low profile races, has risen in recent years. In 2015-16, for example, special interest groups spent a record $19.4 million on TV ads for state supreme court judicial races, according to a November 2016 analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning policy institute at New York University’s School of Law.

While some states provide public financing for elections as a way to limit donors’ influence, states cannot require candidates to use it. Two states — New Mexico and West Virginia — offer public financing for candidates running for seats on their supreme courts, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. North Carolina eliminated its public financing program for supreme court candidates in 2013. To receive the money, candidates must agree to limits on the amount of money they can collect from a single donor.

1. Judges were 60 percent less likely to vote in favor of attorney donors after receiving public financing for their elections.

2. There is some evidence that judges who opted into the public financing system became more ideologically moderate in their decisions.

3. “These results, which suggest that donors do in fact have distorting influence on judicial decision making, make a substantial contribution to the literature on the relationship between contributions and judicial behavior.”