The founding fathers contemplated a constant check and balance among the three branches of government. That tug of war continues in 2007. Within this context, the Georgia General Assembly has asserted its constitutional powers. Certainly, the power of the purse string is an important check that the legislative branch has. Yet, it may be the power to regulate elections that proves to be the most significant in 2007.
Some question whether to have judicial elections at all. Of course, now that Georgia has a Republican governor with a Republican legislature, there is little appetite among the leadership of the Georgia Bar Association for appointed judges. Instead, there has been a renewed enthusiasm for elected judges despite constant complaints about the tenor and vitriol of judicial races.
Oddly enough, the self-appointed committees and groups charged with monitoring judicial elections for civility and decorum have completely disappeared from the legal landscape as lawyers talk with glee of election successes using vicious personal attacks against judicial opponents. Unfortunately, these strategies have only lowered the bar (no pun intended) in the context of selecting judges.
Some forget that it was the donation and acceptance of money from the Democratic Party of Georgia that broke the barrier for partisan money in a judicial race. Just one cycle later, it will undoubtedly be then politics of personal destruction in a judicial race that sets the standard for the next judicial race.
Results oriented bar leaders focused only on winning the last battle with no regard for the next have set in motion a chain of events that can only lead to another round of judicial elections that result in lower respect for attorneys, and even less regard for judges. This strategy undermines the very branch of government that they insist they are trying to protect. Because control is more important than preservation, they have guaranteed that hotly contested, expensive, and degrading judicial elections appear to be here to stay.
Members of both political parties in the General Assembly have insisted that judicial elections are broken and must be fixed. Some have urged a ban on political party contributions to candidates for judicial elections. Others have recommended changing the rules on campaign contributions. One proposal includes the possibility of publicly funded judicial campaigns. Yet, another group has suggested simply making judicial elections partisan. Virtually all have focused on the growing problem of money in judicial elections.
One of the factors that has complicated this issue is the decision of the Georgia Bar Association to use the mandatory fees that it collects from lawyers for political purposes. Another complicating factor is the different set of rules that appear to apply to donations to judicial campaigns.
Other constitutional officers in Georgia are subject to a rule that public officials cannot accept political donations from people they regulate. The reason is obvious.
Yet, candidates for the Georgia Supreme Court can accept donations from folks that the court directly regulates - lawyers. In fact, candidates for the Supreme Court can even accept donations from lawyers who have cases before them. So, there are now proposals to change this exception for lawyer donations, in whole or in part.
Whether any of these proposals should or will make it to the Governor's desk is unclear. What is clear is that the system is not working. As judicial elections continually devolve (as in evolve in the wrong direction), it will become virtually impossible to get good people to serve. And, that is something that the framers never intended.