Tag Archives: judicial elections

judicial campaigns awash in money

Judicial Campaign Spending

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, television ad spending for state Supreme Court candidate races surpassed $29.7 million in 2012. That was a record.

“Political parties and outside groups have dominated TV spending this election season, and are responsible for nearly 70% of the approximately $8.9 million that has been spent on TV ads since the start of September, according to data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG.”

More recently. a new Brennan Center report looked at state supreme court elections for the 2017–18 cycle. As it turns out, many state court races across the country today are highly politicized and awash with money. A lot of of that money may come people with cases in before the court or hidden interest groups that that have an interest in the court’s outcome.

A lot of special interest money comes from all over the country to various candidates. Some of this is dark money, which comes from groups with undisclosed backers.

Research suggests that this money his has had an effect on how judges rule. Election year financial pressures sometimes result in better outcomes for big donors and political party supporters.

Spending on state high court elections has skyrocketed in recent years. As judicial elections come to resemble partisan elections, this can lower the public’s confidence in the judiciary. If judges are little more than robed politicians, why would they have trust in a judges supposed impartiality?

It’s a serious problem that has only gotten worse in recent years.

How has the growing expense of local judicial elections changed the way you operate your campaign or fund raise?

Related:

How State Judges are Selected

The issue of how state judges are selected in the U.S. has been an area of controversy for more than 150 years. There are a number of variations but generally speaking, state judicial selection takes place by one of two methods – by appointment or by election.

Initially judges were appointed by the state governors or legislation. Mississippi in 1832 was the first state to write a provision into their constitution to have voters elect state judges. This eventually became the common method of choice for a majority of states for many years.

During the 1930’s some highly publicized cases highlighting the role of corrupt politics in the election process, in judicial decisions and the excessive time involved in campaigning caused many people to rethink the judicial selection process.

Eventually, a new plan, commonly called the Missouri Plan became the model of choice for judicial selections.

The Missouri Plan is a method to combine election and appointment of judges. Under the plan, candidates for judicial vacancies are first selected by commissions. They forward a short list of names to the governor. If the governor does not select one of these names to fill the position within sixty days, the committee makes the selection.

After one year during a general election, the judge enters into a “retention election” to determine if he will retain his office. This plan is also referred to as a ‘Merit Selection Plan with Governor Appointment‘. Currently 24 states use this plan.

Other types of judicial appointment methods

  • Governor Appointment (no selection commission) – in use by 3 states.
  • Legislative Appointment (no selection commission) – in use by 2 states.

There are two different permutations of the election method of selecting state judges. These are Partisan and Nonpartisan elections. Partisan elections have the candidates’ party affiliation listed on the ballot. A non-partisan election is one where the candidates are listed on the ballot with no label designating any party affiliation. Six states use partisan elections and 15 states currently employ the non-partisan election process.

The debate continues to rage over which method most limits the role of politics in the selection of state judges, with many states currently involved in trying to redefine their systems. For example, if Missouri faces an initiative on their ballot in November; the state’s historical merit selection method would be discarded and replaced by direct judicial elections.

Advocates of appointment claim it minimizes political considerations in the selection of judges, improves the quality of the judiciary and ensures judicial independence in deciding cases. In particular, the use of a judicial nominating commission composed primarily of lawyers and distinguished members of the community is seen as bringing a degree of expertise to the process of picking judges.

Their argument in its favor is that, unlike elective systems, the Missouri Plan is more likely to select qualified judges they say, because they are selected by experts. This assumes the voters, as a whole, are apathetic toward judicial races, are not familiar with the issues at hand, and are basically not competent to vote on judicial candidates.

Opponents of the so called merit plan say the selection is swayed by political insiders and the plan has handed influence over the judiciary to lawyers (mostly liberal leaning trial lawyers, they contend) and bar associations.

The amount of money spent on judicial elections continues to climb – doubling to more than $200 million over the last decade. Only $2 million was spent on those states using the merit system. More and more special interests groups are raising larger and larger sums of money to upset judges that have upheld laws they oppose.

According to district judge, Jeffrey Neary, he barely survived a campaign aimed at removing him from office for granting a divorce to a same-sex couple. He said the experience made him more cautious about how he approached controversial cases. “I don’t want judicial positions to be political positions,” he said. “If that happens I don’t want to be a judge.”

The trend of appointing a partisan to the bench has been gaining momentum in several states over the past few years. Judges have become more politically involved in their decisions over the years. Many have refused to take cases where they felt that there were fundamental issues that should be resolved by the people through the democratic process. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for the people to obtain access to superior court judges. These appointments are not based on the merit of the case, but rather on the party affiliation of the judge.

Whatever the outcome, we can be sure the judicial selection process be a continuing controversy for the foreseeable future.

Dos and Don’ts for Judicial Campaigns

judical campaign dos and don'tsIf you are running for judge, district attorney or other elected office, here are some of our top dos and don’t for online campaigning.

Do start early. There is a lot you can do online right now in preparation for your campaign. Put material about yourself out there now and begin building your online reputation.

Judges are often limited in when and how they can begin campaigning or use social media. For example, they may not be able to print campaign material or engage in online campaigning activities until a particular date.

They also may not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office. They may also be restricted to seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization.

Don’t register a bad domain name. Adding the year or position to your domain name can easily make the name irrelevant in the future. Prosecutors and county attorney often move on to become judges. Using a non-specific name, such as the candidate’s name or ‘vote’ and name, will last much longer and can be reused throughout your career.

Don’t commit to a domain name before you actually own it. Even if you are waiting to start your campaign website, do not commit to using your chosen domain name before you have secured it. There’s nothing worse than ordering campaign supplies listing a website that is wrong or, worse, owned by someone else.

Do invest in a campaign website. The barriers to entry are low, and there is no reason why a candidate in any local race should fail to have a website. Your opponent will probably have one, and interested voters will be searching for you online. If you don’t control your own online message, someone else will.

Do take online political donations (if allowed). Integrating online donations is not very difficult these days. Third party payment processors provide an inexpensive way to accept payments or donations online. Don’t forget to open your campaign bank account early!

Don’t let visitors leave your website without a strong call to action. Every page of your website should ‘make an ask’. It can be a donation, a share, a volunteer request or even simple reminder to vote for you. If you have an email list, be sure to push visitors to sign up for additional updates and reminders.

Know the difference between your primary and general election. While nothing is ever really ‘deleted’ on the web, you may want to consider tweaking or expanding your online message for the general electorate after you’ve won your primary. ‘Red meat’ may get you on the ballot, but a candidate usually has to attract more than just the base to win a general election.

Don’t slow down at the end. Your final Get Out the Vote drive can mean the difference between winning and losing. When you have your volunteers talking to voters on the phone, door knocking and forming neighborhood committees, you will be able to increase your turnout.

Related: How Many Votes Do You Need To Win?

When it is time, wind down your online campaign properly. Make final website notifications, and thank your supporters. They deserve it.

Image courtesy of digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Campaign Slogans for Judges

Choosing a campaign slogan for judge candidatesA good campaign slogan is important for any political campaign. The right slogan encapsulates your campaign message and your primary appeal to voters. It should be short, memorable and in the best cases tap into a genuine emotion.

Campaign slogans for judicial candidates tend to be based more on personal and professional traits.

A slogan is just a short phrase that describes what your candidacy is all about. The most effective campaign slogans are brief statements that offer clear action and are simple to remember. They are also easy for voters to recall and highlights your message. Slogans for judges should be written in simple understandable language that most people can understand.

Example judicial slogans:

  • Integrity. Honesty. Commitment.
  • Strength and Experience
  • Working for YOU
  • A Record of Accomplishment
  • Experience Counts
  • Hardworking, Experienced, Fair
  • Justice for YOU
  • Proven Experience and Integrity
  • The right experience, the right choice
  • Experience, Integrity and Justice with Compassion
  • Balanced, Fair, Firm
  • Additional judical political slogans

judicial campaign slogan tips

 

 

 

Notice something interesting? Compared to slogans of traditional candidates for legislative or executive candidates, these examples are, frankly, kind of boring.

The most important thing to remember when coming up with a campaign slogan for your candidacy is to select something that you believe in or are passionate about.

If you want to get elected to the bench, you can’t come across as too outrageous or partisan. Many states prohibit judicial candidates from making specific promises of what they will do in office other than general platitudes. Most of these races are non-partisan.

And while a judicial candidate could speak publicly about your views on specific hot-button issues, most candidates decline to do so. Instead, they tend to emphasize their experience or endorsements.

An endorsement from the local Police Benevolent Association might carry a different message than a candidate who promotes a long history as a public defender.

That still leaves voters to figure out how a judge will perform in court. They likely won’t be able to figure out where you stand from just your slogan.

Once you’ve chosen a tagline, be sure to use your slogan in your web and print advertising. This will help create and cement your ‘brand’ into voter’s minds.

Get Free Tips to Boost Your Digital Campaign

Know Your Judicial Election Laws

campaign-lawsAll political offices have specific citizenship, age and residency requirements. Candidates must meet those requirements in order to run and hold office. Candidates for Federal, state and even local judge are no exception.

The rules governing elections are designed to ensure an independent judiciary and help set them apart from both the legislature and the executive branches of government. There are federal laws, state laws and even local laws and regulations that candidates must adhere to or risk being removed from the ballot.

If anyone should know how to follow the rules to the letter, you would think it would be judges. However, the rules can be complex, and in some cases, arcane.

In our own dealings with judicial candidates with Online Candidate, we’ve encountered a number of unusual restrictions on fundraising and general campaigning, such as:

  • Some judicial candidates cannot actively solicit donations, but are allowed to accept them.
  • In Pennsylvania, candidates cannot mention donations or engage in any campaign fundraising until a specific date.
  • In other cases, donations must be made anonymously, and the candidate is not allowed to know who made the donation.

Many rules have changed in recent years. Since Citizens United, special interest groups and political parties spent large amounts of money on state court races. States where deep-pocketed groups pour millions of dollar in independent spending  have led to the most expensive 2011-12 high -court elections, particularly in Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina.

This spending has also included negative advertising, something that was one rare in judicial races. Many feel the influx of money is politicizing judicial elections and threatens the integrity of the court.

For judicial campaign websites, there may exist limitations on fundraising solicitations, publication of endorsements and even the timing when one can actually begin campaign online. Even social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, may be limited to judges in both a professional and electoral capacity.

The key takeaway here is that any candidate, no matter what office they are running for, needs to become intimately familiar with their state and local election laws. Rules should be adhered to when getting on the ballot, when fundraising and while advertising during the campaign.

Look to those who have already run or have experience in the position you are seeking. They can be a great source of knowledge and help you avoid unintentional mistakes that can hurt your campaign.

Additional Resources:

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Email Campaigns For Your Judical Campaign

emailDespite the growing popularity of social media, e-mail is still the ‘killer app’ for judicial candidates. If you  are planning on skipping email during your campaign, you will miss out on a great way to keep contact with voters, build your fundraising base and enhance your GOTV push.

If you haven’t started building your campaign email list, start building your list now! Don’t wait or you’ll kick yourself before Election Day when you realize how much voter communication you have missed out on.

There are a number of paid email list management services on the market. Some services are designed specifically for political candidates, often coupled with other services.

For smaller campaigns, any of the major email service providers will do the job. They include AWeber, Constant Contact and MailChimp. In this article, we’ll give an overview of each service and give you our opinion as to what service we recommend. (Spoiler: It’s AWeber.)

MailChimp is an attractive option for many small campaigns because it is free for lists of up to 2,000 subscribers. However, once you reach that limit, your monthly cost becomes $30 month (as of this writing). While MailChimp is easy to use and customize, it has a few downsides:

  • You cannot create followup autoresponders with the free version. A good autoresponder message sequence is essential to any good email campaign. Without it, the only messages your subscribers will get will be the ones you send manually.
  • The deliverability (actual messages getting into subscribers inboxes) may be lower than with other services. This is explained in more detail below.
  • MailChimp does not currently provide its subscribers with phone support service.
  • They have added a number of services to the platform, and push them heavily to users.

Constant Contact is another popular email service. Many political campaigns successfully use the service. It has a 60-day trial period. For additional costs, they have a number of integrated services that you can add on to just basic email services. Here are a few downsides:

  • Constant Contact is more expensive than some other similar service providers. While it allows for importing of email addresses, you cannot use Constant Contact with purchased or rented emailing lists. (Spammers beware!)
  • It may be difficult to cancel the service. Surprisingly, you cannot cancel your account online or via email. You must actually call them to cancel. Otherwise, you will continue to be billed after the campaign.

Aweber is the email service we use. After working with all three services over the years, we have come to the conclusion that AWeber is a better option for many campaigns and businesses looking to build an email presence.

Here are a few reasons why we recommend AWeber for our clients:

1) Easier opt-in and subscribe forms. The signup forms from MailChimp and Constant Contact in particular are difficult to configure and design. Constant Contact allows you to embed a subscribe form in your site but the code uses tables that is difficult to use and sometimes breaks other parts of your page design. Aweber has a form builder that is very intuitive and easy to use. You can generate HTML code from your edited subscribe form or use a line of Javascript to pull the form into your pages.

2) Message deliverablity. AWeber tends to have a better track record for successfully delivering messages into subscriber’s inbox, without getting stuck in spam filters. This is because AWeber DOES NOT allow users to add people to my mailing list without sending a confirmation email that requires subscribers to click a link to confirm that they do, indeed, wish to be added to the list. MailChimp and Constant Contact allow you add names and email addresses to my mailing list without sending confirmation messages. This is probably a reason why AWeber has a better track record of avoiding spam filters. Because every person on an AWeber mailing list has “confirmed” themselves, there is a much lower chance of subscribers clicking the “spam” button on messages they receive through the service.

3) Advanced auto-responder configuration. Both Aweber and Constant Contact have full autoresponder functionality that automatically sends new subscribers a series of prewritten emails over a certain period of time. While autoresponder messages require some advanced planning, they are powerful tools to help communication and provide information to your audience. MailChimp has autoresponder functionality built into their service, but it is only for paid accounts.

The downside to switching vendors

Many campaigns use MailChimp and Constant Contact successfully and are happy with their service. Once you commit to an email marketing service provider, switching over to another one is not a simple task. You can lose many subscribers in the process. For example, if you import a large list to Aweber, each person will need to re-confirm their subscriber status in order to receive your future messages.

If you do not yet have a mailing list for your judicial campaign, we recommend that you start one early.

Creating a Judicial Press Kit

 

Online judicial press kits are helpful in that the information can be kept up to date, and the information is easily accessible. The material can be added to its own section on the website or incorporated into the site contact page or linked elsewhere.

Traditionally, digital press kits are built into a series web pages where the goal is to sell advertising. Using that format on a campaign website is a little redundant, since the point of the site is to sell the candidate for judge

Instead, focus on making the press kit easily digestible information that can be easily downloaded and incorporated into media coverage about your campaign.

So what goes into a judicial online press kit? Unlike a physical press kit, an online press kit can be broken up so it can be downloaded in part or in whole. PDFs work well as a common file format for documents.

You can convert files or even web pages into PDF files through a free tool like PrimoPDF. Images can be grouped together and compressed into ZIP files. WinZip is a popular compression program, but there are free alternatives available such as jzip.

A basic online press kit includes:

  • A cover letter describing the judge and his or her campaign.
  • A judicial candidate biography. Don’t forget to add a photo and related web links.
  • Press releases related to the campaign.
  • Digital copies of your logos, brochures, flyers, etc.
  • Photographs of the candidate and campaign. Consider offering several versions for download. Low-res files can be used for web, but print requires better-quality images for decent results.
  • Newspaper or other media excerpts. Rather than reprinting the material outright, you could create a document or PDF file with links.
  • Question and Answer sheet covering any major issues or items that cover the qualities that make the candidate a good judge.

Avoid fluff, and keep the material professional and up to date. Done well, a press kit creates a whole new media hub around a candidate and builds upon the overall campaign.

Reach out to local media early. Find out what reporters cover your area and send them a quick introduction and contact information, letting them know where they can find up-to-date information about your campaign.

Anything you can do to make a journalist’s job easier is helpful and, if you’re lucky, may lead to better media coverage for your campaign.

Creating a high-quality judicial press kit doesn’t have to be difficult, but it does require some research and legwork. High-quality kits are designed to include the most accurate and useful information for your local media outlets.