Current Article

“Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge”

By SusanUnPC on January 29, 2008 at 1:04 PM in Republicans

Did you catch last Friday’s Bill Moyers Journal on PBS? Moyers interviewed John Grisham on his new book, The Appeal, which is also reviewed in today’s New York Times.

I have a personal story to add about the election of judges in over 30 states. I had a home business when my daughter was small, so I could be there for her, take her to school and pick her up every day. I got very good at writing resumes. One day, a new resume client came to see me, and I was floored. He was the former CHIEF JUSTICE of the state’s supreme court. He needed a resume to get a teaching job. Why did he lose the election the year before? He told me he had been swamped with work on national judges’ committees, didn’t campaign much, and it never dawned on him that he could lose the election since he had won every endorsement possible. But his opponent had an extremely familiar name, the same name as a popular local television news anchor; voters “recognized” the name and voted en masse for his opponent. That’s just plain scary.

Here’s the beginning of Moyers’ interview of Grisham. Especially fascinating is the conversation about voters who “live poor and vote rich” and have been hoodwinked by the Republican party:

JOHN GRISHAM: It’s called THE APPEAL. You’ll love it. It’s got more politics than anything I’ve written. It’s tons of politics, tons of legal intrigue. It’s about — all my books are based, in some degree on something that really happened. There’s an element in truth in all these books. This is about the election of a Supreme Court justice in the state of Mississippi.

Thirty some odd states elect their judges, which is a bad system. Because– if they allow private money. Just like a campaign. Just like the campaign we’re watching now for president. You got corporate people throwing money in. You got big individuals. You got, you know, cash coming in to elect a judge who may hear your case. Think about that. You’ve got a case pending before the court and you want to reshape the structure of the court, well, just to get your guy elected. And that’s happened in several states. Big money comes in, take out a bad judge, or an unsympathetic judge. Replace him with someone who may be more friendly to you. And he gets to rule in your case without a conflict.

BILL MOYERS: Is this the story of the corporation that dumps the toxic poisons into the stream. Ruins the community’s drinking water?

JOHN GRISHAM: It starts off with a verdict. Chapter one is a verdict where this big chemical company has polluted this small town to the point where you can’t even drink the water. It’s become a cancer cluster. A lot of people have died. And so there’s a big lawsuit. And that’s the opening of the book. And then it’s all the intrigue about what that company does. Because the guy who owns that company doesn’t like the composition of the Supreme Court. And he realizes he can change it. And so–

BILL MOYERS: By buying an election. He can buy the judge.

JOHN GRISHAM: Buy your judge. It’s bad at the Supreme Court level, but even at a local level, you know– [...]

BILL MOYERS: What practical consequences issue from the fact that judges in Mississippi are often determined by the most money that goes into the campaign? What’s the practical consequences for citizens?

JOHN GRISHAM: In a state like Mississippi, where the court has now been realigned in such a way where you have a hard right majority. Six or seven. Two or three dissents. When you’ve got a majority you only need five. Virtually every plaintiff’s verdict is reversed.

BILL MOYERS: Virtually every one?

JOHN GRISHAM: Virtually every one. So if you have a– if your neighbor’s son gets killed in a car wreck, and there’s a big lawsuit, and there’s a big verdict against the, you know, the guilt of the negligent party– or if your friend is injured by a negligent doctor, or a hospital, whatever, you’re pretty much out of luck.

BILL MOYERS: So the court is now decidedly biased, in your judgment, in favor of the powerful.

JOHN GRISHAM: Oh, it’s not in my judgment. It’s a proven fact. You can read the Supreme Court decisions in Mississippi, and Alabama, to those two states are next door to each other. And both states have a hard right majority. And so people with legitimate claims are, not always, but generally out of luck.

BILL MOYERS: Isn’t there any outrage among all those good Christian folks, as my mother would say, who live there, who are ordinary folks, little folks?

JOHN GRISHAM: No. Because they sell it, the Chamber of Commerce sells it. Corporate America sells it and the Republican party sells it as a way to protect business, economic development, economic growth. “Look at our state. We frown on lawsuits. We frown on unions. This is a good place to do business.” That’s how you sell it. Sounds good. It’s how every politician does it down there. And you end up with a court that that’s very unsympathetic to the rights of victims. To the rights of consumers. To the rights of criminal defendants. Yeah, that’s what happens when these elections — when those types of people are elected.

BILL MOYERS: What is your understanding of why these good Christian folks, these so many Baptists voted for the party that is in fact the party of money.

JOHN GRISHAM: They live poor and vote rich. They live poor and vote rich. I mean, it’s a– effort to– the brilliant things the Republicans did was get all these guys under one tent. From your traditional Republican base– wealthy republicans, your country club Republicans– your corporate Republicans, and bring in the NASCAR bubbas and all those folks. And then bring– and then get religious right. All these good Christian folks. Get them all under one tent. All voting– really for– one purpose, and that’s to protect, you know, the rich folks. That’s worked beautifully for the Republican party.

FULL TRANSCRIPT.

VIDEO AND AUDIO.

http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

I realize there are distinct drawbacks to elected officials voting on and appointing judges, but overall I think it’s a far better system than asking voters — very few of whom have a sophisticated knowledge of the judiciary and abstruse legal issues — to determine who their judges will be.
http://election-blogs.info/?p=31011 Election » Blog Archive » “Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge”

[...] SusanUnPC wrote an interesting post today on â
rjj

An advantage of public selection is, unless there is electronic voting, there is an element of randomness that you don’t have when the elected officials are owned by the local powers-that-be.

wring hands. wring hands. all is lost. all is lost.
Delia

Susan, it seems to me that there are really two separate issues going on here. One is the election of judges. The other is the way Grisham is saying that the Republican Party has co-opted the poor and working class people of the South in persuading them to vote for the GOP against their own self-interest. (I assume race also plays a role in this.) Now, when I come to judges on ballots, I’m generally at a loss because I know nothing at all about them, and am generally inclined to skip them altogether. So I can see that there seems to be little sense in making them an electoral office. But in general, I think we should separate out these two issues, which are both serious and worthy of analysis.
rjj

Afterthought: Needs economic analysis – how many officials can you compromise (saving the need to buy outright) for the cost of one election.
http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

susan … i am conflicted about your post. i desperately believe in the small d democratic proccess, which of course, includes citizen involvement first and foremost. voting is front and center of this involvement. on the other hand, i lived in alabama when a vast majority of that state gleefully elected judge roy moore as the chief justice of their supreme court. i wasnt shocked that he carried the rural counties where all the bubbas live but he also carried most the metropolitan areas as well. it was downright embarrassing.

another concern of mine is how right wing nut jobs have hijacked the initative process in many states. i could give you numerous examples where ballot measures were passed with the electorate being informed, ahead of time, that a particular measure would be ruled unconsitutional. what is very troubling is how so called grassroots organizations like the club for growth can swoop in and spend millions to push an onerous bill.

i dont have an easy answer on how to control or mitigate these concerns; but, i’m still not sure restricting citizen involvement is the answer. as ol kent jones use to say on rachel’s show daily … vigilance. good post susan … it will give me something more to think about today. thanks!
TeakwoodKite

I know this in a sand trap of this 9th green/ topic but since we are taking about ajudication of the law.
We can’t even get them to trial to be judged.

The Department of Justice has no plans to change its policies on handling possible violations of the Lobbying and Disclosure Act, despite new reports that it has a backlog of 900 unresolved cases.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/justice-defends-backlog-of-disclosure-cases-2008-01-29.html
Fred C. Dobbs

>>> “…That’s worked beautifully for the Republican party.”

EXACTLY as it worked more than 100 years ago for Jefferson Davis and the knotheads who sold the whole idea of the Confederacy to the peckerwoods who’d never be able to afford a single slave, nor likely to ever be invited into the Parlor of a plantation owner’s mansion for a Bourbon and branch water.

One might think the peckerwoods would learn, wouldn’t one?

DISCLAIMER: I get to say, “peckerwood,” since I are one. CSA officers and soldiers in my family tree, just going to show that you can’t control your heritage.

SEE: “Roadmaster Republicans”
http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

I have the same trouble, Delia, when I get to the part of the ballot listing the judicial candidates. For the statewide judgeships, I go to the Seattle Post-Inteligencer and vote for the ones that the Seattle PI recommends. That’s because, over many years, I’ve found I agree with the P.I.’s endorsements of other candidates.

IRONY OF IRONIES about that Chief Justice who got replaced: The man who beat him was regarded as an “ambulance chaser” — all the “experts” were appalled he won. Interestingly enough, he dedicated himself to the job, and has become one of the most respected, fair-minded justices on the state’s supreme court. (That’s NO EXCUSE for the idiots who voted for him because his name sounded familiar, because it was a major Seattle/Tacoma TV station anchor’s name. But it is a relief it didn’t turn out so badly.)

Also: That former Chief Justice came to me several times for updates to his resume. He ended up being sent by the State Dept. to Russia to advise them on how to set up their judiciary, after the fall of the U.S.S.R. He was full of fascinating stories. He also said he was quite sure that the CIA was tracking him and what he did in Russia. Who knows.
Nellie

I agree. It also allows judges to be impartial in MOST cases. And when the Media actually did their job, they picked up on the cases that exposed the Political connections, so at least in NH, justice was pretty even handed.
simon

The politic ecosystems you describe will fail, it may not be tomorrow, it may take years, but they will fail.

I have been reading about Lincoln, and I was struck by his ability to understand the rational for equality, as laid out by the genius of the founding fathers. Man can only progress, political systems only survive, when ALL men are given an equal opportunity to make their lives better, a political system of hope. All men, not just white ones or those connected to middle eastern money. At the end of his life, Lincoln advocated to his cabinet for black suffrage, a radical position, because he understood that American dynamic.

Lincoln did not act from malice, or pettiness, Lincoln did not seek to control or humiliate others, Lincoln preserved the union, in part understanding the hope legal equality brings to a man, and with it, the progress of the nation. He saw with slavery the union would never stand, the dynamic that slavery creates would come back, again and again, to destroy.

Our right wing, which believes in power through suppression of equal rights, is a replica of the civil war confederate mindset, the one dying to maintain slavery. Why would one human want to own another? “Culture” is a catch all, slavery, and political suppression are systems of denial and fear, a function of a stunted psychology. And it doest matter if it’s your boss, or the President, or Putin, any system of authoritarian denial will fail, and anyone seeking to curb the equality of otherwise law abiding people is simply functioning from the mindset of slave owner, to one degree or another.

And so it is with the right wing. The confederate south was a country in decline, the culture stagnant, the economics purely driven by fixed slave labor, it’s lack of progress breathtaking when compared to the more egalitarian North.

The US has been lucky, within a democracy, many pluralities exist. If our Congress is corrupt, say, the progressives will hold political feet to the fire, initiating clean up, much like Lincoln and the republicans did with slavery. This as opposed to the USSR, in the late 1980′s, which did collapse, due to it’s political legacy of oppression.

And 130 some years later, we’re still dealing with the fall out from slavery, we are a continual work in progress. This is why it is so important to keep the balance of power equal, so the country will survive and progress, no one class being superior to another, despite “elite” delusions.

But the US survives, and thrives.
simon

142 years later, my, where does the time go…
jharp

It ain’t limited to the south.

I live in central Indiana and the same god dam thing is true here.
http://progressivist.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/%e2%80%9cbuy-an-election-and-get-your-own-judge%e2%80%9d/ “Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge” « Progressivist

[...] “Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge” Filed under: War On The Middle Class — James Rudy @ 12:30 am “Buy an Election and Get Your Own Judge” [...]
Brighid

The most salient part of the entire interview is the quote: They live poor and vote rich. That’s where the Democratic Party has utterly failed to make their case. That one argument could effect some huge changes in this country. There are a LOT more working class and poor people. Why do we fail to make the case that their judges, bought and paid for; their politicians bought and paid for; their local and community impact, bought and paid for; is a direct result of them living poor and voting rich! We need publicly financed elections, period. When communities have to ante up to pay for elections for judges, then they’ll have a greater interest in the race, too. And, it’s certainly true that if we had publicly financed elections on a federal and state level people will think twice about who they’re wasting their money on. Our current system COUNTS on voter apathy!
Delia

Well, look at the way the Dems have been voting in Congress recently. The sad fact is very few Dems still represent the interests of the poor, working, and middle classes. Look at the bankruptcy bill. The only thing that the Dems didn’t roll on during the Bush Presidency was Social Security, and that’s because they would have been completely fried if they had. So would the rethugs, and they knew it. Look at how hard it is to keep them on message on net neutrality or any other issue. They’re ready to roll over for money and power. There is effectively no party that represents the poor or middle classes at the federal level anymore.