Monday, January 28, 2008
"LOOKING ANEW AT CAMPAIGN CASH AND ELECTED JUDGES"
The New York Times reports on an upcoming article to be published in The Tulane Law Review that examines the correlation between the rulings of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices and whether one of the litigants or their lawyers had contributed to their campaigns. According to the Times reporter, "the conclusions...are not pretty:"
Justice John L. Weimer, for instance, was slightly pro-defendant in cases where neither side had given him contributions, voting for plaintiffs 47 percent of the time. But in cases where he received money from the defense side (or more money from the defense when both sides gave money), he voted for the plaintiffs only 25 percent of the time. In cases where the money from the plaintiffs’side dominated, on the other hand, he voted for the plaintiffs 90 percent of the time. That is quite a swing.“It is the donation, not the underlying philosophical orientation, that appears to account for the voting outcome,” Professor Palmer [article co-author] said.
Larger contributions had larger effects, the study found. Justice Catherine D. Kimball was 30 percent more likely to vote for a defendant with each additional $1,000 donation. The effect was even more pronounced for Justice Weimer, who was 300 percent more likely to do so.“The greater the size of the contribution,” Professor Palmer said, “the greater the odds of favorable outcomes.”
Before we change our method of selecting judges in South Carolina, maybe we should consider the negative aspects of the alternative.
