Ruling is Key to Judicial Independence
Washington, DC - June 9. 2009 - Leaders of the non-partisan Committee for Economic Development (CED) applauded the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the West Virginia case, Caperton v. Massey. The case has highlighted the concern that increased spending in partisan/politically charged judicial races imposes a threat to a fair and impartial judiciary. Since the 2002 release of Justice for Hire, CED has worked to engage business in improving judicial selection procedures in the states. CED supports a commission-based appointment system or a merit-based system as opposed to partisan election of judges.
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the petitioners in this case - businessman Hugh Caperton and the Harman Development Corporation - is a victory for those working to improve and to ensure judicial independence. The business leaders who make up CED believe that judges who must run for office and raise money to finance their campaigns cannot then be seen as fully impartial when deciding cases that involve supporters and opponents. This decision sends a message that the highest court in the land shares our concerns," said CED Trustee Landon Rowland, Director, Chairman Emeritus, Janus Capital Group.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion notes, "Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here-ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The facts now before us are extreme by any measure." The opinion continues, "Almost every State-West Virginia included-has adopted the American Bar Association's objective standard: ‘A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.'"
Details surrounding Caperton v. Massey highlight the importance of judicial independence and selection procedures. In 1998, Hugh Caperton, President of Harman Coal Company sued A.T. Massey Coal Company alleging fraudulent business practices that were destroying his company. A jury verdict of $50 million was ultimately decided against Massey. In 2004, Massey's CEO spent $3 million to elect lawyer Brent Benjamin to the state Supreme Court, while Massey Coal was appealing the case. Mr. Benjamin prevailed and was one of three
justices who voted in the majority overturning the $50 million judgment. When large amounts of campaign spending are involved, the integrity of the judicial process can be readily questioned.
Earlier this year, Fortune 500 companies Intel, Lockheed Martin, PepsiCo, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., joined CED in submitting a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief in support of the Petitioners, Hugh Caperton and the Harman Development Corporation. Caperton v. Massey has highlighted the business community's concern for judicial recusal. A 2007 poll of U.S. business leaders conducted by Zogby International, for CED reported that 97 percent of those surveyed said that judges should recuse themselves in cases involving parties who have contributed financially to their campaign.
Mr. Rowland continued, "We are hopeful that states that currently have, or are expanding, the election of judges, will reexamine their judicial selection process and move to a merit-based system. While it is true that companies are most concerned about the impact of campaign contributions on cases involving business, all citizens benefit from a truly independent judiciary in application of the Rule of Law that is essential to economic development."
More Information
|
