Category: judicial selection

Wyoming legislature signals retreat from merit selection of judges

The growing populism in the United States over the past decade has posed a serious challenge both to judges and judicial selection systems. States with ostensibly nonpartisan judicial elections have considered moving to openly partisan ones, and states with merit selection systems have discussed reverting back to contested elections.

The latest example is Wyoming, which has chosen its judges through a merit selection system since the 1970s. Under Wyoming’s current system, a seven-member judicial nominating commission (consisting of three lawyers appointyed by the state bar, three non-lawyers appointed by the governor, and the chief justice of the state supreme court) vets candidates for a judicial opening and sends three names to the governor, who must select one. Judges then face retention elections at the end of their terms if they wish to stay on the bench.

The system has worked well for decades, ensuring that finalists for a judgeship have a demonstrated amount of competence and skill. And the final decision still rests with the governor, a statewide elected official. But this is not enough for the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which is angry about certain judicial decisions in Wyoming and now wants to overturn the entire apple cart. The Freedom Caucus convinced the state’s Senate Judicary Committee to narrowly pass a proposition that would give the state Senate final approval over the appointment of state supreme court justices. That proposition would still have to make its way through the legislative process and be approved by voters.

This is a classic solution is search of a problem. The news story linked above notes that only 13% of Wyomingites in a recent poll disapproved of how judges are handling their jobs. There is also the practical problem that the state Senate is in session only two months a year — what happens when a vacancy arises during the other ten months?

Sigh.

Transparency in the court system is an important value, and we should always be looking for more ways to build public confidence in the administration of justice. But let’s be clear: the only transparency here is the Freedom Caucus’s transparent attempt to turn the state judiciary into a political arm of the right. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail.

House reintroduces JUDGES Act

The JUDGES Act, a bill that would have added 66 new federal judgeships over ten years, received bipartisan support in the last Congress before it was coldly vetoed by Joe Biden in the waning days on his presidency. This blog took Biden to task for a petty act of partisanship, denying a co-equal branch of government its basic needs just because an opposite-party president would have the opportunity to fill the first tranch of judgeships.

Rep. Darrell Issa has now reintroduced the Act, aiming at adding the same 66 new judgeships as before. And as before, Democrats are playing games. Representatives like Jamie Raskin, who certainly should know better, will continue to delay the legislation and punish the judiciary for no viable reason.

The bill worked its way out of committee on a party-line vote, but it’s hard to be optimistic that the courts will get this much-needed influx of judges anytime soon.

Weekend tibdits: Dog bites man, 3L runs for judge, Arkansas judges make nice

A few interesting state court stories from the last couple of days:

  • Repairs on a courthouse elevator in Texas were delayed after the technician was bitten by a dog on his way into the building. A few rabies shots later, the tech and the elevator were both doing fine. The dog remains at large.
  • A 24-year old student at Brooklyn Law School is planning to run for magistrate judge in his local Pennsylvania community this spring, and will campaign while completing his studies. The judicial position does not require a law degree in any event. He plans to file as both a Democrat and Republican for purposes of the state primary.
  • The Arkansas Judicial Council, working to mend fences after the new chief justice attempted unsuccessfully to fire ten senior court employees, issued a formal resolution recognizing the employees’ service to the judiciary.

Georgia judge dies in courthouse by apparent suicide

A tragic story as the year turns over: Georgia state judge Stephen Yekel was found dead in his courtroom Tuesday morning. The cause of death appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Yekel was elected to the bench in May 2022 but was not reelected this past November. His term was set to end on December 31. A few weeks ago, Yekel attempted to resign his position effective December 30, apparently to nullify the election results by creating a new vacancy that could be filled by Governor Brian Kemp. But Kemp refused to accept the resignation and deferred to the will of the voters.

Our thoughts are with Judge Yekel’s family and friends.

Arizona voters reject radical changes to judicial selection and evaluation

Arizonans faced a ballot initiative last month that would have overhauled the state’s judicial selection system. It was a highly partisan proposal that would have jettisoned the state’s longstanding system of evaluating and retaining judges at the end of a set term of office, and replaced it with retroactive life terms dependent only on oddly defined categories of “good behavior.”

The Arizona Capitol Times has a nice summary of the voters’ decisive rejection to the proposal, which has the effect of maintaining the state’s status quo. This is a victory for all Arizonans, who preserved their best system for maintaining a fair and balanced judiciary.

Village justices elected in New York with fewer than 20 write-in votes; one winner “undecided” about whether to take job

Village courts are one of the oddest parts of New York’s notably byzantine court system. Justices are tasked with deciding cases involving traffic fines, evictions, criminal misdemeanors, and some civil matters. Unlike other judges in the state, village court justices do not need to have any formal legal training. But like all other trial judges in New York, they must be elected.

Apparently most citizens of Onandaga County did not care to vote for their village justices, and exactly zero citizens in the villages of Spafford and East Syracuse could be bothered to formally seek the position. As a result, the winner of each town’s election prevailed with fewer than 20 write in votes.

Anthony Albanese, who won the East Syracuse election with 16 write-in votes (and aided by 1,181 blank ballots), is reportedly “undecided” whether to take the position, which pays $9,000 annually.

(h/t Election Law Blog)

House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?

This week, the House of Representatives comfortably passed the JUDGES Act (S.4199), which would add 66 federal judgeships over the next ten years. The judgeships would be phased in over ten years, with the first two tranches coming in 2025 and 2027.

The Senate passed the same bill back in August, but House Republicans stalled a vote on the bill until after the election. Now that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the House Democrats decided that it was their turn to play politics with the judiciary and slow-played the vote until mid-December.

This is an excellent result for a resource-starved judiciary. But it appears that the drama will continue for a while, as President Biden has threatened to veto the bill on his way out the door. It’s worth unpacking the illogic and petulance of his threat.

Continue reading “House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?”

Arizona judicial election proposal faces court challenge

A proposal to eliminate retention elections and performance evaluations for many Arizona judges, scheduled to go to the voters in November, now faces at least one court challenge. Opponents filed suit on Friday, claiming (among other things) that the proposal’s title–the Judicial Accountability Act of 2024–is “deceptive” and “intentionally dishonest.”

Intentionally dishonest, even Orwellian, titles for legislative proposals seem a fixture of our modern politics: I’m looking at you, Inflation Reduction Act. Nevertheless, the substance of the proposal raises a number of very serious concerns, as I discuss here.

Opponents filed the case in Maricopa County Superior Court, whose judges would be directly affected by the proposal’s passage. (All Maricopa County Superior Court judges face periodic evaluations and retention elections under the current system.) Thus we see another example of what I have called “judging when the stakes are personal.” I will be curious whether there is any effort to move the case to smaller county where judges are directly elected and therefore do not have a direct stake in the outcome.

More federal judges on the way?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced S.4199, a bill that would create 63 new authorized judgeships for the federal district courts. Thirty-one new judgeships would be created effective January 2025, with the rest going into effect in 2029. If it passes the full Senate and the House, it would represent the first comprehensive judgeship legislation since 1990.

This is a big deal. The Judicial Conference of the United States has warned about the mismatch between judicial resources and the federal courts’ growing docket for years, and just last year recommended 66 new district judgeships to keep up with demand. In the past, similar requests have been ignored, often because neither political party was willing to give the other the chance to fill a large number of judicial vacancies.

Our present political divide, however, seems to have provided a unique opportunity. With both parties confident that they will win the Presidency in 2025, it seems a reasonable gamble to authorize the judgeships now. And indeed, the bill passed the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. We’ll see if it maintains traction going forward.

Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits

Arizona lawmakers have advanced a ballot measure that would eliminate term limits for many state judges, instead making judicial service dependent on “good behavior.” The bill would have retroactive effect, meaning that if voters pass it in November, all judges who currently face periodic retention elections would effectively be granted life terms. This would apply even to judges who lose a retention bid in the same November election.

The immediate practical impact of the measure is to severly curb the number of judicial retention elections, a mainstay in Arizona for decades. Currently, all state appellate judges, as well as Superior Court judges in Coconimo, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, face retention at the end of their set terms of office. Under the proposed measure, however, such judges would only face a retention vote upon (1) conviction of a felony or another crime involving fraud or dishonesty, (2) initiation of personal backruptcy proceedings, or (3) a determination by the Judicial Performance Review (JPR) Commission that the judge does not meet performance standards. Continue reading “Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits”