I have a guest post at the IAALS blog today, looking at some of the more interesting developments from last month’s state judicial elections — including the ongoing recount for the Chief Justice seat in North Carolina.
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), one of the premier legal reform organizations in the United States, is seeking a new CEO. The full details can be found here.
As a proud alumnus of, and occasional ongoing contributor to, the IAALS family, I can confirm first-hand that this is a remarkable organization and a remarkable opportunity. It will take an equally remarkable person to take IAALS into the 2020s and beyond, but I encourage all qualified people to give it serious consideration.
I have a new post up at the IAALS blog that looks more deeply at the changes to California’s Code of Judicial Ethics, which permit judges to comment on pending cases in the context of a recall or retention election. Here’s a taste:
The amended rule allows judges who are under electoral attack to explain and contextualize their decisions to the voters directly. This is especially important for decisions rendered orally from the bench, which—like the rulings that ultimately felled Judges Corey and Persky—were not supplemented with a written account of the judge’s thought process. If a controversial decision was mandated or constrained by existing law, or by formal rules of evidence or procedure, the judge is now free to explain those circumstances to the public. A nuanced legal explanation will still struggle to compete for voter attention in comparison to a simple hashtag, but at least a judge will have some opportunity to advance his or her position directly.
At the same time, by inviting judicial comment on pending cases, the new rule places the overall integrity of the judiciary at greater risk. Traditional rules of judicial conduct prohibit judges from even approaching behavior that might be considered inappropriate for a neutral jurist. Judges, for example, are directed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to disqualify themselves if there is anything above a de minimis personal interest in the outcome of a case, and to conduct extra-judicial activities so as to “minimize the risk of conflict with obligations of judicial office.” And, of course, judges are traditionally barred from discussing a pending case, lest they compromise the fairness of the proceeding. By consistently erring on the side of impartiality, judicial conduct rules avoid close calls and send a message that judicial integrity is of the utmost importance. The new rule blurs the line between appropriate and inappropriate judicial speech, and may have long-term erosive effects on public faith in the judiciary.
Please read the whole thing!
That is the question I address in my latest guest post at the IAALS Blog. Check it out!
At the IAALS Blog, Maddie Hosack relates the story of a Kentucky judge who was disqualified from presiding over a lawsuit involving the state’s Republican governor, after it was discovered that the judge had liked a Facebook post featuring the governor’s Democratic challenger in the upcoming election. It’s another reminder that judges must be extraordinarily cautious in their use of social media.
The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) has released a new report entitled Recommendations for Judicial Discipline Systems. Authored by University of Arizona law professor Keith Swisher and Brookings Fellow Russell Wheeler, it is a careful and sober analysis of existing judicial discipline systems, with recommendations for improving the process in a way that protects judicial independence and integrity as well as public expectations about efficiency, fairness, and transparency.
Cribbing from the Preface: