Despite the sharp decline in the number of local newspapers, it’s important to understand that other legacy news-delivery platforms – particularly local TV news – have not been suffering the same degree of loss. Pew Research Center found that local TV news actually saw its audience increase across the evening and late-night timeslots in 2020, and that local TV companies earned more revenue than the previous year.1 In fact, local TV was deemed to be on par with or outpacing cable and network TV. Pew survey data show more Americans still prefer to get their local news from television than from any other medium, including online. Even with an increasing preference for digital delivery, “local television stations have retained a strong hold in the local news ecosystem.”2

It is usually a mistake to suppose that a company is the best judge of how its business works.1 Or that an industry is the best judge of how the industry works. AT&T is a good example. When the Justice Department sat down with management in 1981 to negotiate a breakup of what was then a monopoly provider of telephone service, government lawyers asked which part of the company management wanted to keep after the breakup – the long-distance operations or the regional networks.2 The long-distance operations had long been the company’s most profitable, so management asked for those.3

Media have traditionally relied on a mix of advertising and subscription revenue to keep the lights on – and to produce a mix of high-quality, thoughtful, well researched, compelling news, information, educational, and other content that is necessary in a modern democracy. The internet has disrupted those revenue streams. And while some media outlets have shored themselves up on other sources of support – grants, government transfers and licensing fees, wealthy patrons, or the like – such funding is both the exception and de minimis in the overall operation of our media ecosystem.

Trust in media institutions has declined more or less apace with trust in every other kind of major institution in public life. Or perhaps it is more correct, as Ashutosh Bhagwat observes in his contribution to this project, to say that trust has declined in the types of media institutions, the proverbial Walter Cronkites, that dominated “the media” during the twentieth-century period when modern American ideals around free speech and journalistic value were still taking form.

As indicated by the title, this chapter covers cases raising issues not covered in other chapters. Most prominent are cases concerning recusal not related to campaign fundraising or expenditures, most of which do not result in an order for recusal. Other issues covered include judicial districting unrelated to voting rights, retaliation, challenges to the creation of new positions arising in the context of filling them, method of selection (appointment or election) unrelated to filling an interim vacancy, recall, and a range of other miscellaneous issues.

Chapter 3 provides a statistical portrait of the 2,103 cases concerning the selection of state judges identified in the research. This portrait includes the frequency of such litigation over time and across states, the issues raised in the litigation, and how those issues vary over time, across states, and by type of election used. The chapter includes a comparison of litigation in state courts versus federal courts, noting that federal litigation over state judicial selection is a relatively recent phenomenon and has been driven in significant part by the Voting Rights Act. Importantly, the vast majority of the litigation occurs in states using contested judicial elections to select and/or retain judges.

This chapter examines litigation related to the appointment of federal judges, including administrative law judges (ALJs). Key issues raised in this litigation include recess appointments, the confirmation process, and whether and how the Appointments Clause applies to non-Article III judges including ALJs. In recent years, most of the litigation over federal judicial selection has concerned the appointment of ALJs.

The three types of issues discussed in Chapter 5 involve a combination of interesting and routine issues. Probably the most interesting are those related to eligibility that dealt with formal qualifications: legal training, law license, practice time, residence, age, and gender. Several challenges to licensing requirements arose because the requirement was stated as “learned in the law,” which in turn raised questions as to whether that meant holding a law degree. The more interesting issues concerned age, particularly after the passage of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); importantly, the ADEA cases arose in states that appointed rather than elected judges, and the issue was whether judicial positions fell under the “policy position” exclusion. Age-related cases were brought on other grounds (e.g., equal protection) as well, but those cases failed. Term length cases generally concerned how long a judge appointed to fill a vacancy was to serve. Vacancy cases concerned the existence of a vacancy and how vacancies were to be filled.

The primary focus in Chapter 7 is election administration, which includes ballot contents (e.g., what name a candidate could use on the ballot and additional information that should or could appear on the ballot such as incumbency status of a candidate), ballot form or format (retention or contested), scheduling issues, validity of the election, and a range of other issues. The chapter concludes with a relatively brief discussion of election contests, including type of election being contested (partisan or nonpartisan, primary or general), and the issue raised in the contest; two of the cases involved name issues raised after the election, one a name change and the other the use of the candidate’s birth name rather than her married name.

Chapter 8 covered cases specific to nonelective systems, including the Missouri Plan, other appointment (mostly gubernatorial) systems, and legislative elections. The Missouri Plan cases mostly concerned the membership and processes of nominating commissions. Appointment cases concern issues such as requirements for legislative (usually state senate) confirmation and recess appointments. The legislative election cases generally dealt with technical issues (e.g., whether the vote in the legislature could be a voice vote or required ballots).

The concluding chapter starts by very briefly summarizing key patterns in the litigation over judicial selection and then returns to the de Tocqueville quote and the issue of American exceptionalism. To assess the exceptionalism question, the chapter includes a discussion of litigation over judicial selection outside the United States, finding that it occurs in very few countries and where it does occur, is generally very limited. One exception is the recent burst of litigation in international courts over judicial selection in Poland. Another possible exception is Israel where there has been litigation concerning several judicial selection issues. Overall, the chapter concludes that American exceptionalism in litigation over judicial selection does not lie in the existence of such litigation but in the frequency of that litigation.