Considering the tone of advertisements in Montana’s U.S. Senate race in which candidates Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg are berated as hypocrites, traitors, or worse, it will be interesting to see how future campaigns for the state’s coveted judgeships will be conducted. By interesting, I mean awful.
If you own a television, you have seen commercials for and against the Senate candidates since they seemingly repeat on a never-ending loop meant to brainwash viewers. And if we were to believe them, verbatim, I’m not sure why anyone would want to cast a vote. After all, these guys increase taxes, are fond of lobbyists and have repeatedly given themselves raises while selling out Montanans. And they “should not be forgiven.” It’s all very scary.
In each ad, produced by both the campaigns and third-party groups, there are likely kernels of truth. But, at least in regard to the negative spots, the baritone-voiced narrator and frightening background jingle make it difficult to decipher the point. It’s like watching a trailer for a B-movie horror flick.
We can expect more of these in future elections, except that they have the potential to be far worse.
Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Montana’s ban on partisan endorsements of judicial candidates. The ruling follows others that have severely weakened the state’s campaign finance and election laws largely based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
To be sure, few view judgeships as apolitical and most voters know little about the candidates running for the posts, often making name recognition enough to get elected. District and Supreme Court judges also make far-reaching decisions and those who are affected by them deserve to know how the candidates have previously interpreted the law.
But it’s not that simple.
Judges, many ruling on thousands of cases over the course of their tenures, are perhaps the easiest of all candidates to vilify in a 30-second spot, especially in regard to criminal cases. In other states where money has flown freely in judicial races, it’s common for candidates or their supporters to accuse their opponents of basically being complicit to criminal activity.
In West Virginia, Warren McGraw was accused of being “too dangerous” to be a judge. “Tired of being victimized, but criminals go free?” the spot asked.
Alabama Judge Mike Bolin, according to an advertisement, “reversed a murder conviction of a robber who killed a handicapped man.”
Michigan Judge Denise Langford Morris, according to another, is “soft on crime for rappers, lawyers and child pornographers.” Yes, rappers.
A terrifying ad out of Illinois shows a dramatization of three inmates who claimed Judge Thomas Kilbride sided with them on appeal even though they stabbed victims with kitchen knives, slashed the throats of a mom and daughter and shot their ex-girlfriend.
Again, judicial candidates who rule on criminal cases should be held accountable for their decisions. But after working the cops and courts beat, it’s also clear that just about any one of a judge’s decisions can be made to look bad when taken out of context.
Those who dissented on the federal appeals court’s recent decision also worried about the “corrosive impact on the public’s perception of the judicial system.”
“The fact that political parties can back up their endorsements with significant sums of money threatens to further erode state judges’ ability to act independently and impartially,” the dissent wrote.
Fewer people view courts on any level as impartial. And next election cycle, when advertisements begin airing in Montana, there will be even less faith in the system.