Bert Brandenburg

Her fear is that the guarantee a fair trial could be threatened by campaign pressure on judges.

In recent years%2C interest groups have poured millions into state Supreme Court elections.

Polling shows that more than 90%25 of Americans think this campaign cash affects courtroom decisions.

In a recent dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor shined a light on the complicated world of electing judges, and rekindled a debate on justice in America. Her fear is that the Constitution's guarantee of due process and a fair trial could be threatened by campaign pressure on judges who must stand for election.

For Mario Dion Woodward, it's literally a matter of life and death. Woodward was convicted of fatally shooting a Montgomery, Ala., police officer. In 2006, a jury recommended by a vote of 8-4 that he serve life without parole. But a trial judge ordered Woodward executed anyway.

'Overriding' justice

When the U.S. Supreme Court denied Woodward's request for an appeal in November, Sotomayor noted that among the three states where judges can override juries to impose the death sentence, 26 of the 27 life-to-death overrides since 2000 were in Alabama. She warned that "Alabama judges, who are elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral pressures."

An Equal Justice Initiative study on Alabama's death penalty, cited by Sotomayor, says, "The proportion of death sentences imposed by override often is elevated in election years." As, Tommy Nail, the presiding judge in Birmingham's criminal court says about the effect of elections on fair trials, "It has to have some impact. ... Let's face it, we're human beings."

The problem goes well beyond Alabama. More than four out of five state judges must stand for election.

In recent years, interest groups have poured millions into state Supreme Court elections, often for attack ads accusing judges of being soft on crime. In 2011-12, a record $33.7 million was spent on TV ads, including $20.7 million by non-candidates. Polling shows that more than 90% of Americans think this campaign cash affects courtroom decisions. Nearly half of state judges agree.

Sleazy attacks

In recent elections, judges and candidates were accused of having "expressed sympathy for rapists," "volunteer(ing) to help free a terrorist" and protecting a priest accused of molestation. Such ads are routinely used against judges of both parties, who often defend themselves by bragging about how tough on crime they will be. Many are bought by groups who don't even concentrate on crime issues. In 2010, an Illinois group focused on civil lawsuits ran an ad featuring actors posing as convicted criminals who boasted about their crimes, then thanked the incumbent justice for siding with them over their victims.

The combination of crass electioneering and big money lend credence to Sotomayor's fear that judicial elections cast "a cloud of illegitimacy over the criminal justice system." Indeed, a study by the Center for American Progress shows that in states where judicial campaign spending increased, courts ruled more often against criminal defendants.

Alabama's election-eve death warrants might be an extreme case. But it's clear that elected judges can be made uncomfortably vulnerable to outside pressures. To insulate the courts that protect our lives and libertiesfrom bumper-sticker politics, all 39 states that elect judges must enact reforms, such as public financing of judicial elections and merit-based selection systems. As retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor warns, when "many people in our country think of judges as just politicians in robes," our democracy is in trouble

Bert Brandenburg is the executive director of Justice at Stake.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.

