Elected Judges and Campaign Contributions: The Public's Just Not Into You.

Wow, are you all following the case of the West Virginia Supreme Court judge who was elected with $3 million in campaign contributions from a coal mining executive who had a case pending before their Supreme Court? And the judge he helped elect promptly delivered the deciding vote that overturned a $50 million jury verdict against the coal company?

USA Today covered the story on its front page yesterday. And the Supremes decided to take the case for this term (even though they too have struggled with recusal/conflict issues).

But what was interesting to me was the results of this poll cited in the article:

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll this month found 89% of those surveyed believe the influence of campaign contributions on judges' rulings is a problem, and 52% deem it a "major" problem. More than 90% of the 1,027 adults surveyed said judges should be removed from a case if it involves an individual or group that contributed to the judge's election campaign.

HAHAHAHA. Oh that's rich.

Given those numbers, do you think there is a disconnect between how the public views such contributions, and how judges and lawyers perceive them? Do lawyers and judges even recognize that the public views this issue the way the poll indicates?

Who the hail knows?

Anyways, I look forward to seeing you all at the fundraiser on Thursday.