WHEREAS the fairness and impartiality of judges and the judicial system goes to the very core of ADL’s founding mission of securing justice and fair treatment to all; and

WHEREAS ADL has longstanding policy opposing the politicization of federal judicial appointments; and

WHEREAS state court judges hear approximately 95 percent of all cases in the United States, making decisions about issues as critical and as varied as state funding for public education, sentences for criminal defendants, and a broad swath of challenges under state constitutional provisions, including marriage equality, voting rights, church-state separation, hate crimes, reproductive rights and more; and

WHEREAS thirty-nine states use judicial elections to select at least some of their judges and 87 percent of all state court judges nationwide face elections at some point, whether to initially secure a seat on the bench or to retain their positions at the end of a term; and

WHEREAS spending on judicial elections has increased dramatically, with more than two-thirds of campaign donations coming from lawyers, business interests and lobbyists, all of whom regularly have cases before the courts; and

WHEREAS in recent years outside contributors have spent millions of dollars to oust judges who have handed down rulings  that they did not agree with, including successfully blocking the re-election of three supreme court judges in Iowa after a unanimous decision in favor of marriage equality from the Iowa Supreme Court; and

WHEREAS judges often hear cases involving campaign donors, including litigants who have cases pending before the judge who received the campaign donation, and only fifteen states have rules requiring judges to recuse themselves from cases involving campaign contributors; and

WHEREAS studies show that 95 percent of people believe that when judges are elected, the campaign contributions they receive impact their decisions on the bench, and 46 percent of judges say they believe that campaign contributions have at least some impact on judicial decision-making; and

WHEREAS judges’ campaigning has become increasingly politicized, with candidates for judgeships announcing their views on controversial political and legal issues, making judicial elections appear more and more like legislative and executive elections; and

WHEREAS numerous studies have found that, as elections approach, judges are more likely to hand down longer criminal sentences and are more likely to affirm death sentences; and

WHEREAS ADL has previously resolved to support efforts “that prove to be effective to reduce mass incarceration, oppose racism, reform practices that disproportionately impact communities of color, create safe environments for all communities, and build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect”; and

WHEREAS incumbent white judges are more likely to win reelection than incumbent black or Latino judges and, in states that hold non-partisan judicial elections, only 9.6 percent of judges are people of color, raising concerns that judicial elections may contribute to a lack of diversity on the bench; and

WHEREAS some states have proposed constitutional amendments to change from judicial elections to other methods of selecting judges, including merit selection; and other states are making efforts to reform the politicization of judicial elections, including by creating public funding for judicial elections to stop the influence of outside campaign contributions; and

WHEREAS some states are considering strengthening requirements for when judges must recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anti-Defamation League expresses its concern over the current situation in which the election of state judges has led to instances in which judges’ abilities—or the public’s perception of their abilities—to secure justice and fair treatment for all, has been compromised; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anti-Defamation League will support efforts to promote judicial fairness and impartiality, including  supporting constitutional amendments to change from judicial elections to other selection methods more likely to ensure judicial integrity; public financing for judicial elections; and efforts to strengthen requirements for when justices must recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors.