As noted in this paper and other media, it appears that there may be a trend toward the increased politicization of probate judge races. Probate judges are the only judges I know of who are elected in our system. While the idea of donating money to judges or their party’s campaign committee may be foreign to us, it is common in states where all judges are required to seek election to obtain or retain office. This has led to cases where the fairness and impartiality of certain judges has been called into question when there appears to be congruence between political donations and favorable court decisions.
The most celebrated of these decisions was the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case of Caperton v. Massey. There, the court was presented with a record revealing that a principal of one party to litigation before the West Virginia Supreme Court involving a $50 million judgment had spent $3 million getting one of the justices elected. In their ruling, the SCOTUS justices advanced the notion that if you give a judge too much money, you might violate your opponent’s constitutional right to fair and impartial justice. Seems like a no-brainer, though the U.S. Supreme Court did take pains to note that it was not saying you could never give money to a judge who was considering your case, just not too much, and articulated some factors to be considered, such as how much you gave versus the whole campaign treasury of the judge. Not a really bright line.
