Public Financing of Judicial Elections? Only if Lawyers Pay For It.
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, the guy who replaced Rod Blagojevich, wants to institute public financing for judicial elections. He’s set up a commission and everything!
The latest proposal floating around the Illinois statehouse would require lawyers to foot the bill on behalf of campaigning judges. A tipster reports:
[Pat Quinn] has proposed public financing of judicial elections beginning in 2010. Of course, Illinois, like many big states, is deeply in dept, so the governor plans to pay for this “reform” by taxing each lawyer $50, as an extra charge on his or her annual bar registration fee. Needless to say, many lawyers see this as bad policy and a terrible precedent. Why should a government, which has no money, pay for the cost of judicial campaigns, or transfer the cost to lawyers?
I’m surprised the government hasn’t put more “sin taxes” on the legal profession already. Should lawyers have to pay for a judge’s campaign? Probably not. Are you going to get the general public to rally to the defense of lawyers? Certainly not.
But it’s not too late to act. More details about the plan after the jump.
There is another interesting part of Quinn’s plan:
The funding is to come from assessing each Illinois lawyer a $50 surcharge on his or her ARDC registration fees and a $1 fee on litigants who file civil actions.
Great, so now were are taxing lawyers and litigants. It’s not just a plan to make judicial elections free, it’s also a plan to ensure that judges are the only people who can make it into a courtroom.
(Yes, I know, it’s only a dollar on top of the normal filing fees. But it’s the principle of the thing.)
Taxing lawyers and civil litigants is still just a proposal, which means interested parties can still affect the legislative process. The Illinois State Bar Association is practically begging people to leave a comment about this proposal. You can do so here.
Or maybe you think attorneys should defray the costs of judicial elections? If it stops one person from entering the profession, that is one more job for the rest of us.
ARDC surcharge for judicial elections [Illinois State Bar Association]
(34) 
Comments
How about we just get rid of judicial elections?
Forgive my student loans and you can have the $50. No problem.
My client prefers to finance judges in a different way... Those judges that he keeps in his pocket like so many nickels and dimes.
Public funding of judicial elections is fine, but this is a stupid idea.
Having lawyers pay for judicial elections is like having lobbyists pay for political elections: just because you work within a system doesn't mean that you are obligated to fund the campaigns of people who run it.
.
My check is in the mail. No, really, you should be getting it anytime now.
Who wants a Fresca?
Fifty dollars is a pittance, and considering the scenario in Caperton v. Massey, if we can't get rid of judicial elections altogether, at least we can get potential litigants out of the judge-buying business.
Judges are not there just for the benefit of the lawyers; they are there for the benefit of the public as a whole. If Quinn wants to fund judicial campaigns, the public as a whole should foot the bill.
we'll just pass the sin tax cost onto clients anyway...
Tax the golfers!
I blame Texas for this miscarriage of judicial election finance.
If I sat on a spice mound on Arrakis, just before a spice bloom eruption, the resulting trauma to my anus would still not surpass what Pat Quinn wishes to inflict upon me as a licensed Illinois Attorney.
I am tired of the bar and all its fucking fees. Stop allowing our legal work to get shipped out of the country assholes!
They should call it the Karl Rove Tax.
First Lady's Phallus flops forward freely
This is basically the plan that's been in place in North Carolina for the past few years. While a $50 charge seems obnoxious at face value, it's worth remembering that in a privately financed system, lawyers feel obligated to donate to judicial campaigns whether they want to or not. Would you want to argue before a judge that you refused to donate to, against a lawyer who did give? Nobody does, so judges get donations from most of the lawyers they see in court. Rather than have that system, it at least makes some sense for the lawyers to just all donate a small amount of money to be spread around to all the judges. Not the best answer, but probably the lesser of two evils.
14,
Barbara Bush is properly referred to as Former First Lady.
Besides, she was a big sweetie, so quit teasing her for her massive Johnson.
this is why Canadian hockey coaches should not become governors.
15=common sense.
Can't get rid of judicial elections in Illinois. If we had an appointment system like the feds, we'd have Blago-judges and Ryan-judges. Ick. Strictly "merit" systems would still pick judges from inside the wigwam. Elections are the best bad option.
19,
false. you can have an elected judicial nomination council that has a veto over the governor's appointments.
Sounds fair to me. The $50 will be passed on to clients. Thus, the people who use the system pay for it rather than the general population at large.
But, will any nut qualify for a gov't subsidized campaign?
21,
probably not. there will likely be a threshold number of signatures required to qualify.
19 is right. Could you imagine the crooks sitting on the bench in Illinois if they were appointed by the governor. It would get to the point that if a lawyer wanted to win his/her case, they'd have to come out of pocket a whole lot more than $50.
This is the most boring day on ATL ever.
Judge Smails
Doesn't a $1 non-administrative fee put in place a barrier to access for would-be litigants? It seems like a bad idea, even if it's only $1.
Also, Utah has a system where they appoint judges through a citizens advisory council or something, subject to confirmation by the Gov. Judges then have to run for reelection periodically, but can't spend money unless someone raises money for a campaign to vote them out. I don't know how well it works in practice, but it seems like a good idea.
deeply in "dept"?
4 -
That is exactly how political elections work though.
How about the blowhards at the ABA hold another conference, assemble another committee and draft another tome about judicial ethics.
After all, they already have such a great time chewing ad nauseam about legal ethics...
"But it's the principle of the thing."
As Seth and amy would say, Really!?
What principle is that?
As #15 said, if it ends solicitations for judicial campaign contributions, it's worth it. Whine all you want about the courts serving the entire public, but no one is more impacted by bad judges than the attorneys who have to explain their decisions and live by their dictates. Attorneys have a special obligation to ensure that the courts work well, much more than the general public does.
As for a $1 fee on litigants, there might be a principle at stake if there were not already fees. But if there are fees, then what is the operative principle? Don't litigants also have a special interest in having the best judges unburdened by the potential corrupting influence of campaign donations?
Quit yer whining!
"But it's the principle of the thing."
As Seth and amy would say, Really!?
What principle is that?
As #15 said, if it ends solicitations for judicial campaign contributions, it's worth it. Whine all you want about the courts serving the entire public, but no one is more impacted by bad judges than the attorneys who have to explain their decisions and live by their dictates. Attorneys have a special obligation to ensure that the courts work well, much more than the general public does.
As for a $1 fee on litigants, there might be a principle at stake if there were not already fees. But if there are fees, then what is the operative principle? Don't litigants also have a special interest in having the best judges unburdened by the potential corrupting influence of campaign donations?
Quit yer whining!
If you consider fity dollars in cash merely finance... te salud, Don Quinn.
I practice in Illinois, and I've never been solicited for a contribution to a judge's campaign, nor has anyone I know. Maybe that's the case in North Carolina, but not here.
29/30 - Fair point, though I maintain that there is a distinction between fees paid to cover the administrative burden of litigation (paperwork, staff time, etc) and fees that support some other function.
It still seems to me that the solution is to change the system of judicial election. Who, aside from attorneys and the relatively few people who interact with courts regularly, can make a qualified judgment between candidates? There is no intrinsic reason we should be electing local judges.
Pat Quinn is a jackass. He was never voted as governor of Illinois, but ever since Blagojevich was forced out, Quinn thinks he has a mandate to raise taxes on everything.