Coal controversy, costly campaign coincide to make court case that could alter judicial elections

Two intersecting brawls by Appalachia's largest coal operator, one in a business deal and the other in a judicial election, have created a U.S. Supreme Court case that "has the potential to change the way judicial elections are conducted and the way cases are heard in the 39 states that elect at least some of their judges," The New York Times reports.

The exploits of Massey Energy Chairman Don Blankenship, left, are also the subject of a report in the latest ABA Journal of the American Bar Association. The case involves a dispute with coal operator Hugh Caperton over a Southwest Virginia mine, a 3-2 ruling in Massey's favor by West Virginia's highest court, and the $3 million Blankenship spent to elect one of the judges who voted his way. When the Supreme Court said in November that it would hear an appeal, based on Justice Brent Benjamin's refusal to disqualify himself from the case, "much of the legal establishment cheered," the Times' Adam Liptak reports. "Here was an opportunity, bar associations and law professors said, to draw a line separating big money from judicial decision making." (NYT photo at Matewan, W.Va., train station by Don Petersen)

But Liptak notes that the facts of the case may not lend themselves to a Supreme Court decision about judicial elections and the increasing prevalence of big contributors who stand to gain or lose at the hands of judges. And in an interview in his unassuming office near Belfry, Ky., Blankenship told Liptak that he spent millions in 2004 to defeat Justice Warren McGraw, whom he did not like, rather than to ensure favorable rulings from Justice Brent Benjamin, who is in the fifth year of a 12-year term.

“I’ve been around West Virginia long enough to know that politicians don’t stay bought, particularly ones that are going to be in office for 12 years,” Blankenship said. “So I would never go out and spend money to try to gain favor with a politician. Eliminating a bad politician makes sense. Electing somebody hoping he’s going to be in your favor doesn’t make any sense at all. . . . Massey always has cases,” Liptak notes, "The company is a frequent plaintiff, and it has attracted lawsuits over environmental, workplace safety and labor issues." (Read more)

The Charleston Gazette has been on this story from the start, and the Sunday Gazette-Mail has a story by Paul Nyden debunking an assertion in a Massey brief that there was no indication that Blankenship and Benjamin had met. It also notes that oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 3. To read it, click here.