Depending on the situation, judicial elections can assume a variety of different forms. In Wisconsin, a judicial campaign has taken on the frenetic tone of a general election campaign while in Philadelphia the process has remained quiet, with success hinging on candidates’ ability to maneuver among the powers that be to secure a position on the ballot. In either case, consultants are required to navigate the process.
In Wisconsin, the fight for control of the state Supreme Court in the April 5 elections has intensified significantly. The court is technically non-partisan, but observers agree that it is currently split 4-3, with conservatives holding a slight edge. With the judicial election coming right after a contentious legislative battle over collective bargaining rights for public employees, both the Democratic and Republican bases are deeply engaged.
A third-party group called the Greater Wisconsin Committee is currently running an ad against David Prosser, the incumbent, conservative justice that even the left-leaning Talking Points Memo has described as “The Mother of all Negative Ads.” The ad charges that Prosser engaged in a cover up to protect a convicted sexual predator thirty-three years ago.
Joseph Cozzolino, president of Judicial Campaign Consultants, says that the contentious judicial election in Wisconsin is of a piece with a trend he has noticed, even in non-partisan elections, toward increased participation by outside partisan groups. Indeed, he routinely advises judicial candidates to position themselves as a partisan candidate would in any other election by brushing up on the issues driving the political debate and emphasizing their personal background rather than professional history in biographical spots.
“Very often in judicial races, people try to portray themselves as a skilled lawyer, but people are not always doing an analysis of your lawyering background so much as looking at the same issues that you would for non-judicial races,” says Cozzolino. “You’ve got to come across as aware and sensitive, even in judicial races.”
He says that standards set by a state bar associations often prevent lawyers running to become judges from airing ads similar to the one attacking Prosser. However, there are no such prohibitions against third-party groups running whatever ads they think are likely to benefit candidates they prefer.
Meanwhile, judicial elections in Philadelphia are partisan, but have drawn far less interest from the electorate. Nonetheless, judicial candidates there often employ consultants to navigate the opaque nomination process, in which support from Democratic Party officials and city legislators is key to success.
Forty-five candidates are currently vying to fill ten vacancies on Philadelphia’s Pleas Court. The general election won’t be held until November 8, but the winners of the May 17 Democratic primary are all but assured of victory in the general. Marcia Gelbert, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, describes a process in which candidates’ political connections to the city’s ward leaders and party bosses are far more important than their qualifications to sit on the court.
One candidate, Sayde Ladov, has engaged the services of Philadelphia political consultant John Sabatina and former U.S. Rep. Michael Myers in an effort to increase her name recognition and political stature among the city’s political leaders.
While Cozzolino says he would still advise clients in the Philadelphia race to become knowledgeable about political hot-button issues that drive the local and national conversation, none of that matters if you don’t get on the ballot in the first place. In Philadelphia’s case, attending fundraisers, projecting an aura of influence, and becoming known to the city’s Democratic establishment is essential to securing a spot on the ballot, which is of course a prerequisite to winning a seat on the bench.
“For me, it is all about history,” says Cozzolino. “Or having connections with individuals with whom the party has a good relationship or is indebted to. If you can’t pull those out of the bag, I think you will have a difficult time in the process.”
Noah Rothman is the online editor at C&E. E-Mail him at nrothman@campaignsandelections.com
In Wisconsin, the fight for control of the state Supreme Court in the April 5 elections has intensified significantly. The court is technically non-partisan, but observers agree that it is currently split 4-3, with conservatives holding a slight edge. With the judicial election coming right after a contentious legislative battle over collective bargaining rights for public employees, both the Democratic and Republican bases are deeply engaged.
A third-party group called the Greater Wisconsin Committee is currently running an ad against David Prosser, the incumbent, conservative justice that even the left-leaning Talking Points Memo has described as “The Mother of all Negative Ads.” The ad charges that Prosser engaged in a cover up to protect a convicted sexual predator thirty-three years ago.
Joseph Cozzolino, president of Judicial Campaign Consultants, says that the contentious judicial election in Wisconsin is of a piece with a trend he has noticed, even in non-partisan elections, toward increased participation by outside partisan groups. Indeed, he routinely advises judicial candidates to position themselves as a partisan candidate would in any other election by brushing up on the issues driving the political debate and emphasizing their personal background rather than professional history in biographical spots.
“Very often in judicial races, people try to portray themselves as a skilled lawyer, but people are not always doing an analysis of your lawyering background so much as looking at the same issues that you would for non-judicial races,” says Cozzolino. “You’ve got to come across as aware and sensitive, even in judicial races.”
He says that standards set by a state bar associations often prevent lawyers running to become judges from airing ads similar to the one attacking Prosser. However, there are no such prohibitions against third-party groups running whatever ads they think are likely to benefit candidates they prefer.
Meanwhile, judicial elections in Philadelphia are partisan, but have drawn far less interest from the electorate. Nonetheless, judicial candidates there often employ consultants to navigate the opaque nomination process, in which support from Democratic Party officials and city legislators is key to success.
Forty-five candidates are currently vying to fill ten vacancies on Philadelphia’s Pleas Court. The general election won’t be held until November 8, but the winners of the May 17 Democratic primary are all but assured of victory in the general. Marcia Gelbert, writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, describes a process in which candidates’ political connections to the city’s ward leaders and party bosses are far more important than their qualifications to sit on the court.
One candidate, Sayde Ladov, has engaged the services of Philadelphia political consultant John Sabatina and former U.S. Rep. Michael Myers in an effort to increase her name recognition and political stature among the city’s political leaders.
While Cozzolino says he would still advise clients in the Philadelphia race to become knowledgeable about political hot-button issues that drive the local and national conversation, none of that matters if you don’t get on the ballot in the first place. In Philadelphia’s case, attending fundraisers, projecting an aura of influence, and becoming known to the city’s Democratic establishment is essential to securing a spot on the ballot, which is of course a prerequisite to winning a seat on the bench.
“For me, it is all about history,” says Cozzolino. “Or having connections with individuals with whom the party has a good relationship or is indebted to. If you can’t pull those out of the bag, I think you will have a difficult time in the process.”
Noah Rothman is the online editor at C&E. E-Mail him at nrothman@campaignsandelections.com
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!