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.
Citing a “crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has called for reform of election campaigns for state judges, urging more states to adopt systems similar to those in Arizona — and New Mexico — for selecting state Supreme Court justices.
“In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution,” O’Connor wrote in reaction to the findings of a new report on skyrocketing campaign contributions in state supreme court elections.
Her comments were included in the forward of the study report.
“(T)he perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold,” she wrote. “To avoid this outcome, states should look to reforms that take political pressure out of the judicial selection process. In recent years, I have advocated the system used in my home state of Arizona, where a bipartisan nominating committee recommends a pool of qualified candidates from which the governor appoints judges to fill vacancies. Voters then hold judges accountable in retention elections.”
O’Connor also pointed to public financing, campaign disclosure laws and recusal reforms as ways to improve transparency and reduce conflicts of interest in the courts.
Campaign fund-raising for state judicial elections more than doubled nationwide from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009, according to the report.
“We all expect judges to be accountable to the law rather than political supporters or special interests,” O’Connor wrote. “But elected judges in many states are compelled to solicit money for their election campaigns, sometimes from lawyers and parties appearing before them. Whether or not those contributions actually tilt the scales of justice, three out of four Americans believe that campaign contributions affect courtroom decisions.”
