Kansas voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment, Amendment 1, which would have replaced the state’s nonpartisan judicial selection process with partisan elections. The measure was defeated by a 65% margin, preserving a system proponents argue safeguards judicial independence.
The California Supreme Court, in its May 28 decision in J.O. v. Superior Court, ruled that judges may now examine allegations that parties are abusing Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 through bad-faith, blanket disqualification motions. The court specifically cited Yolo County as an example, where prosecutors utilized the statute to remove the county’s only Hispanic judge from felony criminal cases, highlighting the dangers posed by such challenges. This ruling represents a significant shift in California law, validating long-standing concerns regarding judicial independence and the potential for retaliatory actions against judges.
The American Bar Association has issued a formal warning that escalating political attacks targeting judges and courts across the United States pose a substantial threat to the independence of the judiciary and the foundational stability of democratic institutions, citing instances of intimidation and punitive measures directed at both judicial officers and legal practitioners.
The Trump administration’s attacks on the federal judiciary have increased threats to judges, creating a dangerous climate that undermines the independence of the judicial branch and threatens democracy.
Three former immigration judges warned that the Trump administration’s continued firings and understaffing of immigration courts threaten constitutional due process rights and are exacerbating a crisis in the federal system.
One hundred retired California judges issued a Declaration of Judicial Independence on Constitution Day, warning that attacks on the judiciary threaten democracy and the rule of law, and pledging to speak out against such attacks.