O’Connor: Ruling Could Portend ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ in Judge Races
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor says last week’s ruling striking down restrictions on corporate campaign spending will likely affect judicial elections as corporate and union money flows into the races.
Speaking Tuesday at a judicial selection conference at Georgetown University Law Center, O’Connor said the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was likely to create “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary,” the New York Times reports.
“In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending,” O’Connor said, “the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon.” The Washington Post also covered O’Connor’s remarks.
O’Connor, a critic of contested judicial elections, was one of the authors of a 2003 campaign finance ruling that was partially overruled in Citizens United.
Looking ahead, O’Connor saw the possibility of an “arms race” in judicial elections, citing examples of how special interest money could affect the process. Labor unions and trial lawyers would win one state judicial election through their contributions, and then tobacco and energy companies could win another, she said.
“And if both sides unleash their campaign spending monies without restrictions, then I think mutually assured destruction is the most likely outcome,” she said.
