I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
The U.S. Supreme Court today exposed a central tension in the system of electing judges, which most states — including New Mexico — do.
The nation’s top court ruled that judges should recuse themselves when ruling on a case that involves big campaign contributors. The ruling emanated from a situation in West Virginia where a justice on that state’s top court refused to recuse — or disqualify — himself while hearing a case involving his top campaign contributor.
Here’s an excerpt from the New York Times that helps to explain the particular case in West Viriginia and why there is much interest in the ruling nationally:
In a 5-to-4 decision released on Monday, the high court found that the circumstances surrounding Justice Brent D. Benjamin of the West Virginia Supreme Court and a lawsuit involving the Massey Energy Company, his major campaign contributor, were so “extreme” that there was no question that Justice Benjamin should have disqualified himself.
Because 39 states have legal systems in which judges are elected, the outcome of the West Virginia case has been eagerly awaited. But whether Monday’s decision will bring clarity or chaos to the state courts, or something in between, was a point of bitter disagreement between the high court’s majority and dissenters.
It’s unclear how today’s ruling might affect New Mexico, where state court judges run for election and private contributions finance their campaigns.
Individuals who serve on the state’s top two courts — the New Mexico Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court — also are usually seated by election. But as of 2007, they can opt to accept public money to pay for their campaigns rather than solicit contributions from the public to finance their campaigns.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is worthy of note here in New Mexico to see if only the Legislature starts serious talk about extending public financing of judicial campaigns to state court judges. Stay tuned.
