A new report from the Center for American Progress has found that elections impede the diversity of state judiciaries, which may affect decisions made on the bench. From the report:
At the state level, where most judges are elected, our courts clearly do not reflect the diversity of the U.S. population. There are 340 state supreme court justices in the United States—but the relevant information about their backgrounds is lacking. A 2009 study from the American Judicature Society found that only 10 percent of state supreme court justices are nonwhite. A 2011 report by Fox News Latino found that only 3 percent of state supreme court justices were Latino—just 10 jurists.
The report focuses primarily on the highest state courts, but includes evidence that suggests a lack of diversity throughout the state judicial system. In Alabama, for example, every one of the 19 appellate judges is white, compared to two-thirds of the state's population.
And the few minority judges that are on the bench have a harder time keeping their jobs. The study found that, "since 2000, the overall reelection rate for incumbent Supreme Court justices in contested races is 88 percent. For white justices, that number is 90 percent. But black justices have been reelected 80 percent and Hispanic justices 67 percent of the time." The Supreme Court of Ohio has only ever had three black justices, and two of them lost reelection the year after they were appointed.
The lack of judicial diversity can likely be attributed to a number of factors, but a big chunk of the problem is cash. The amount of money in judicial races has grown exponentially, especially since the Citizens United ruling opened the door to unlimited outside spending. Just last week, Pennsylvania's election broke the spending record for Supreme Court races nationwide. Research shows that courts are more diverse when elections are publicly financed. The exorbitant spending in judicial races hurts voters and candidates alike.
Diversity on the bench matters, especially in a system where minorities are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. The evidence suggests that race and gender have a significant impact on how judges rule.
From the report:
[A study] focused on racial harassment claims in federal court, found that plaintiffs were much more likely to win in cases before African American judges. Another study looking at sexual harassment claims examined the decisions by three-judge panels in federal appeals courts and found similar results: Panels that included at least one female judge were twice as likely to rule for plaintiffs. If this research is correct, the white males who overwhelmingly populate our courts are less likely to rule for plaintiffs in civil rights cases.
This particular study looks at federal judges, but the stakes are even higher in state courts. After all, 95 percent of judicial action happens in state courts, including 94 percent of felony convictions. State courts handle 100 million cases per year.
The evidence suggesting that judicial elections disfavor minority candidates is distressing. As advocates work to create a better judicial election system, the need for increased diversity cannot be ignored.