{"id":2082,"date":"2011-03-26T18:00:44","date_gmt":"2011-03-26T22:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=2082"},"modified":"2016-11-17T08:15:04","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T13:15:04","slug":"two-years-after-caperton-judicial-reform-loses-momentum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/two-years-after-caperton-judicial-reform-loses-momentum\/","title":{"rendered":"Two Years After Caperton, Judicial Reform Loses Momentum"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Just over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in <em>Caperton v. Massey<\/em>, a case involving the ramifications of soaring campaign expenditures in state judicial elections.\u00a0 <em>Caperton<\/em> arose out of a West Virginia supreme court justice\u2019s failure to recuse himself from a case against Massey Coal Company \u2013 despite the fact that Massey\u2019s CEO had spent over $3 million in support of the justice in the last election.\u00a0 The <em>Caperton<\/em> Court ruled that the justice\u2019s refusal to recuse himself violated the litigants\u2019 right to a fair trial.\u00a0 Following <em>Caperton<\/em>, calls for reform have been widespread.\u00a0 However, as a recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice\u00a0details, meaningful change has yet to materialize.<\/p>\n<p>Post-<em>Caperton<\/em> reform has been especially slow in West Virginia, the situs of the initial controversy.\u00a0 In <em>Caperton<\/em>\u2019s wake, West Virginia Governor (now Senator) Joe Manchin convened an Independent Commission on Judicial Reform, chaired by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O\u2019Connor.\u00a0 The Commission\u2019s report eschewed altering in the way judges are selected in West Virginia, proposing more modest reforms, including the establishment of an intermediate court of appeals and a public financing pilot program for one of the two open supreme court seats in the 2012 election.\u00a0 The Legislature, however, has declined to authorize an intermediate appellate court and only $3 million has been allotted to the public financing pilot program.\u00a0 In 2010, the West Virginia Supreme Court released revised rules for appellate procedure, but none of these dealt directly with the recusal process.<\/p>\n<p>Though recent events continue to show the perils of the politicization of judicial elections, momentum for reform seems to have slowed.\u00a0 As judicial campaigns become more costly \u2013 and more contentious \u2013 the U.S. Supreme Court may soon have a chance to refine what due process requires in the context of judicial elections.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"Brennan Center for Justice: Two Years After Caperton, Small Steps Forward, Many More Strides Needed\" href=\"http:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/blog\/archives\/money_in_the_courtroom_two_years_after_caperton_small_steps_forward_many_mo\/\">http:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/blog\/archives\/money_in_the_courtroom_two_years_after_caperton_small_steps_forward_many_mo\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a title=\"West Virginia Independent Commission on Judicial Reform Final Report\" href=\"http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/22604435\/West-Virginia-Independent-Commission-on-Judicial-Reform-Final-Report\">http:\/\/www.scribd.com\/doc\/22604435\/West-Virginia-Independent-Commission-on-Judicial-Reform-Final-Report<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a title=\"State Journal: Senate, House Blame Each Other for Failed Bills\" href=\"http:\/\/statejournal.com\/story.cfm?func=viewstory&amp;storyid=95854\">http:\/\/statejournal.com\/story.cfm?func=viewstory&amp;storyid=95854<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a title=\"The Charleston Gazette: Public Finance Campaign Supporters Worried About Pilot Program\" href=\"http:\/\/sundaygazettemail.com\/News\/201103150658\">http:\/\/sundaygazettemail.com\/News\/201103150658<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a title=\"West Virginia Revised Rules for Appellate Procedure\" href=\"http:\/\/www.wvbusinesslitigationblog.com\/uploads\/sites\/10\/file\/Revised%20Rules%20of%20Appellate%20Procedure.pdf\">http:\/\/www.wvbusinesslitigationblog.com\/uploads\/sites\/10\/file\/Revised%20Rules%20of%20Appellate%20Procedure.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Just over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Caperton v. Massey, a case involving the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,44,42],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-voting-and-elections-rights"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-xA","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2082"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}