In Memoriam: Mark Cady

The legal world has been shocked by the sudden death of Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady on Friday. Chief Justice Cady joined the Iowa Supreme Court in 1998 and became Chief Justice in 2011. He was best known for authoring the court’s unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien (2009), which declared that prohibitions on same-sex marriage were barred by the Iowa Constitution. Voter dissatisfaction with that decision led to three of Cady’s colleagues not being retained the following year, which (ironically) opened the door for Cady to become Chief Justice in 2011.

Chief Justice Cady is being remembered as a splendid jurist and a dedicated public servant. That was certainly my impression of him on the one occasion I was able to meet him. The court system and public have lost a thoughtful, compassionate, and highly intelligent judge and leader.

The Iowa Supreme Court will take the time to appropriately grieve the loss of its chief justice (and indeed, it has already postponed oral arguments scheduled for this week). At some point, however, the court will also need to turn back to the more mundane task of filling his seat. Members of the court will choose the new chief justice themselves, but not until a new justice has been appointed. That process involves initial review of candidates by a 17-member nominating commission, with the final selection in the hands of the state’s governor, Kim Reynolds. The Des Moines Register has a good primer on the process here.

Deepest condolences to the family and friends of Chief Justice Cady.

California’s federal judicial vacancies come to the forefront

With certain federal district courts operating with a profound number of judicial vacancies, court leaders are increasingly going public with the need to fully populate their benches. The most recent salvo has come from Chief Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California, who wrote a letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris, urging them to find ways to fill the district’s vacancies.

The Central District of California, encompassing Los Angeles and environs, is authorized by federal law to have 28 active district judges. The Judicial Conference of the United States recently concluded that in fact, the district needs 38 full-time active judges to meet its workload. But the district is currently operating with only half that number (and nine formal vacancies). The last new judge was confirmed back in 2014.

The Central District has one of the heaviest workloads in the country, as measured by weighted caseload filings. Will California’s Democratic Senators and the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican leadership do the right thing and fill those vacancies? As we enter another election year, it’s hard to be optimistic.

Surprise me, Senators. Do the right thing.

Ugly campaign tactics in upstate New York judicial race

Law.com reports on a campaign mailer sent to residents of Sullivan County, New York, which accuses a Democratic judicial candidate of being a socialist and favoring the legalization of drugs. Her Republican opponent has taken full credit for the mailer, which was designed to look like a local newspaper. The accused candidate has denied the allegations of socialism and drug legalization, and has filed a complaint with the state broad of elections.

Judicial candidates acting injudiciously.

 

Party politics and judicial nominations in Michigan

The Detroit News has a fascinating and distressing story about how partisan politics are influencing judicial nominations in three different Michigan courts, covering both the federal and state levels of the judiciary.

Briefly, the state has two federal district court vacancies, one in the Western District of Michigan and one in the Eastern District. The vacancies have been difficult to fill because the Senate’s “blue slip” process essentially allows the state’s two Democratic senators to block the confirmations of any Trump nominees that they do not like. In light of this reality, state Republicans and Democrats worked out a compromise: the seat in the Eastern District would be filled by current Magistrate Judge Stephanie Davis, and the seat on in the Western District would be filled by a nominee supported by the Republican establishment. The plan would have made Davis the first African-American woman nominated to the federal bench by President Trump.

The pact fell apart, however, after Trump’s Western District nominee, Michael Bogren, lost the confidence of Senate Republicans. State Republicans scrambled to find a new nominee, and seemed to have landed on state appeals court judge Brock Swartzel. In the meantime, the Davis nomination was frozen in its tracks.

Then, out of nowhere, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Brian Zahra offered himself up as a nominee for the Western District vacancy. Zahra is a Republican (judges run for the bench with party affiliations in Michigan), and pledged to resign from the state supreme court if Trump nominated him and the state’s Senators agreed not to oppose his nomination. The move would allow a Democrat to be appointed to the state supreme court in his place, tipping the partisan balance of that court toward the Dems.

The article calls the proposal “a neat package” which, among other things, would allow Zahra to collect a federal salary as well as a state pension. But the partisan brazenness of the proposal is appalling, at least to this blogger. How could Zahra even pretend to be impartial if he was placed in the federal bench? And what role does he see for party affiliation on the trial bench, typically the least politicized aspect of the judiciary?

It is an increasingly popular take among partisans on both sides to criticize the judiciary as politicized and biased. Those concerns start with the judicial selection process, in which the very same partisans exert their dismal control.

Delaware to appeal holding that its judicial appointment process violates the Constitution

Reuters has a very interesting story on the case. Briefly, in April the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Delaware’s arrangement for picking state judges violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it effectively prevents anyone unaffiliated with one of the two major political parties from holding judicial office. The story explains:

Delaware’s constitution includes two provisions that, according to the governor’s petition, are intended to ensure the political independence of its state judiciary. One provision, known as the “bare majority” requirement, insists that no more than 50% of the judges of the Supreme, Superior and Chancery Courts be affiliated with either major political party. The other clause, dubbed the “major party” provision, requires that Delaware judges be affiliated with one of the two major parties in the state.

In combination, the constitutional provisions maintain the political equipoise of the Delaware courts. But last April, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Adams v. Governor of Delaware that the provisions violated the First Amendment right of free association of James Adams, a retired Delaware lawyer who alleged that he could not seek a judicial appointment because he is a registered independent.

The story goes on to identify several important questions raised by Delaware’s scheme. There seems to be little dispute that it has raised the reputation of the state’s courts, but at the same time it reduces judicial appointments to mere partisan politics and undermines both judicial independence and the courts’ legitimacy.

The Supreme Court has not been shy on weighing in on state judicial selection in the past, especially where First Amendment rights are implicated. It will be interesting to see if they take this case as well.

(Even more) corruption of the judiciary in New York City

The New York Times periodically turns over the rock known as judicial selection in the Big Apple, and lo and behold, the nasty little critters underneath always seem to be thriving. This time it’s a story on corruption in the Bronx, where a Democratic party boss seems to have punished a local judge for refusing to hire his hand-picked crony as a “confidential assistant.”

What a colossal embarrassment. Why do New Yorkers tolerate this?

 

The most pointless judicial election ever?

One candidate was declared ineligible. The votes were counted anyway. But to what end?

A remarkable story from Alabama. Last fall, prosecutor Linda Hall won the Democratic primary for a seat on the Jefferson County Circuit Court located in Birmingham. But before the general election, her primary opponent challenged her victory, alleging that Hall did not meet the state’s requirement that judicial candidates live in the circuit for at least 12 months before the election.

The court agreed, and held that Hall was ineligible to run in the general election. But the ballots had already been printed, so the primary challenger was left out in the cold. Moreover, the court declared that the votes in the general election must still be counted. Despite her ineligiblity, Hall handily defeated the Republican incumbent, Teresa Pulliam, by 16,000 votes in November.

Unsurprisingly, Hall’s electoral victory brought a new round of litigation, this time by two Jefferson County voters who challenged Hall’s fulfillment of the residency requirement. In a trial in late 2018, Hall testified that over the previous 12 months she had lived in four different apartments in the Birmingham area, as well as a number of extended stay hotels in St. Louis, Missouri. Hall explained that she had to keep moving apartments due to problems with mold, foul odors, and smoking neighbors. By early October — just weeks before the general election — she landed in her final apartment, which was actually located within Jefferson County.

After trial, Hall was again declared ineligible for the judgeship, and enjoined from taking the oath of office. This past week, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that decision without opinion.

So, to recap: a judicial candidate who was declared ineligible for office before the general election was nevertheless elected, and later barred from taking office. Three different courts had to get involved. And at the end of the day, the people of Birmigham County had an unfilled judicial seat. (In another twist, Hall’s opponent, Judge Pulliam, was quickly appointed to a different seat on a criminal court. So losing an election evidently isn’t much of a career killer.)

I suspect that there is much more behind this story, at least as to the motivations of those charged with putting judges on the Alabama bench. It isn’t much of a surprise that Judge Pulliam, a Republican, would be reappointed to another seat by the state’s Republican governor. Likewise, I suspect that Ms. Hall’s electoral victory was a product of party and identity politics. Hall is an African-American woman running as a Democrat in a city that is more than 70% African-American and which regularly elects Democrats to office. It is well-established that many (perhaps most) judicial voters have little knowledge of the candidates before them, and accordingly look for low-salience cues like party affiliation, race, gender, or last name to aid their decisions. If the system worked well, voters would have recognized that a vote for Hall was meaningless. But they voted for her in droves.

It may well be that given Alabama’s dark history of racial inequality, a pure appointment process for judges may not create sufficient public trust in the judiciary. Allowing communities to choose their own judges through elections may therefore be a necessary accommodation. But if we are to put judicial candidates before the voters, at least those candidates should be minimally qualified, and at least the voters should be minimally discerning.