No Program in Nation Earns 'A'
May 1, 2008
Issued on Law Day, May 1, HALT's 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card is
a scathing indictment of toothless judicial ethics standards and the
closed-door systems charged with disciplining judges. Of the 51 state
systems surveyed, more than half received marks below C. Mississippi and
Maine flunked outright. No state earned an A. Washington state took top
honors, but was only graded a B. HALT gave the systems overseeing federal
judges a D+.
"While most judges serve capably from the bench, our systems for judicial accountability unfortunately allow others to regularly abuse their positions of power," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "Weak conduct codes permit state and federal judges to rule even when they have a critical conflict of interest in a case. Judicial discipline commissions regularly turn a blind eye to misconduct by making it difficult for citizens to file complaints against judges, concealing data and ultimately refusing to remove or meaningfully sanction even the most incompetent and abusive judges."
HALT's Report Card comes on the heels of last month's release of new discipline rules for federal judges that the United States Judicial Conference has made mandatory for the first time. While the new regulations brought clarity, they failed to add procedures that would have made the system more rigorous, transparent and impartial. HALT's Report Card gave the 13 federal circuits, which now all operate under the same set of rules, a combined D+ overall. "Surprisingly, our research shows that many states' oversight of state and local judges is superior to the federal circuits' oversight of federal judges," noted Blonder. "Given that federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments, we are troubled by the federal circuits' inattention to federal judges who misuse their positions on the bench."
In need of greatest reform, HALT's study found, are both the state and federal ethics rules that allow judges to accept compensation from private groups attempting to influence case rulings. "Corporations and special interests frequently provide expense-paid trips to lavish settings in a thinly-veiled attempt to lobby judges," explained Blonder. "Rigorous ethics rules would place caps on the funds that judges may accept from private entities, but unfortunately most conduct codes and statutes continue to permit members of the judiciary to accept these gifts with few limitations."
HALT also criticized the gag rules that prohibit individuals from publicly discussing that they have filed an ethics complaint against a judge in 16 jurisdictions. "In an era that embraces principles of sunshine and transparency, it's shameful that the system for monitoring our most powerful officials is designed to shut out the public and punish those citizens who dare to disclose that they have called a judge's conduct into question," stated Blonder.
Pointing to the insular nature of judicial oversight programs across the country, HALT also noted that 42 states and the federal circuits stack the commissions that decide judicial ethics complaints with judges and lawyers—giving ordinary citizens only a token role in the process at best.
HALT issued grades in seven categories: (1) Transparency; (2) Availability of Meaningful Sanctions; (3) Consumer Friendliness; (4) Online Outreach; (5) Public Participation; (6) Financial Disclosure and (7) Gift Restrictions.
"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, effective oversight of state and federal judges is vital," stated Blonder. "It's now incumbent on our legislators as well as state and federal high courts to transform a mechanism marred by indifference and secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of our nation's judiciary."
|
