Tag: merit 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.

Rural Arizonans choose merit selection

Arizona’s constitution requires that counties with a population over 250,000 must select their superior court judges using a merit selection model: judges are appointed by the governor based upon recommendations from a nonpartisan nominating commission, and then subject to periodic retention elections. Smaller counties, by contrast, typically elect their judges in contested elections.

But citizens in these smaller population counties may opt into the merit selection process by approving the change during a general election. And that is exactly what Coconino County voters did last week. It marks the first time that a rural Arizona county has chosen merit selection over the standard, party-affiliated election system. Coconino County Judge Dan Slayton provides more detail on the change at the IAALS Blog.

I applaud the move!

Justice At Stake closes its doors

Today brings the sad news that Justice At Stake, an important court reform group of the past 16 years, has closed down due to funding woes.  JAS had moved in recent years toward more explicit advocacy of merit selection, which did not sit well with some in its core donor base.

I had the great pleasure of working with Justice At Stake during my time with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), and I was consistently impressed how deftly and charismatically its leadership brought together reform groups from around the country.  I made friends and colleagues from the Brennan Center for Justice, American Judicature Society, Lambda Legal, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, National Center for State Courts, and countless other organizations.  Even when I disagreed with certain individuals on other matters of policy, I was always heartened by our shared conviction that the American courts deserved both reform and vigorous defense.  It was a testament to the JAS leadership that we were always kept focused and on track.  Its legacy is sure to last.

 

 

North Carolina Chief Justice pushes merit selection for state judges

Speaking to the North Carolina Bar Association on Saturday, Chief Justice Mark Martin called for merit selection of all North Carolina judges:

Martin proposed that retention elections for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges be held statewide and voters in individual judicial districts decide on District Court and Superior Court judges. The elections would be held after each term of office, which Martin said could be eight years or some other period.

This is an extraordinary statement, even in light of the ugly tug-of-war between North Carolina’s governor and state legislature over judicial selection in the last few months.  With most state judges ascending to the bench through an electoral process, his call for merit selection would remove the very system that gave him and his colleagues personal and professional success.

But that, of course, is exactly the point.  The North Carolina system is broken, and whatever democratic benefits direct elections of judges may serve now seem overshadowed by concerns that may reduce the judiciary’s public legitimacy.  Chief Justice Martin’s call for merit selection was a brave first step toward a better system of justice in the state.

Five former Pennsylvania governors renew push for merit selection

Former governors Dick Thornburgh, Tom Ridge, Mark Schweiker, Ed Rendell, and Tom Corbett have published an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, calling for the merit selection of all judges in the Keystone State.  Their position goes beyond even the current proposed legislation, which would extend merit selection only to the state’s appellate judges. The governors note:

Merit selection is not a panacea. We are hardly naïve about today’s political realities. Nonetheless, having in place a system by which any qualified candidate can apply for an open seat on the appellate bench and be considered by a bipartisan, diverse group of citizens from across the commonwealth — a group tasked with evaluating the strength of that candidate’s professional and personal qualifications to serve — is a far better system than one in which random ballot position, fund-raising, and campaigning are determining factors.

The op-ed also cites to the excellent work being done by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts to make the case for changing the state’s judicial selection system.

Pennsylvania legislators push for merit selection of state judges

State Representatives Bryan Cutler and Madeleine Dean have proposed an amendment to the Pennsylvania  constitution that would eliminate direct elections for state appellate judges.  Instead, judges would be chosen by merit selection.  Under the plan, a 13-member panel would choose five nominees for a judicial vacancy, and send that list to the governor. The governor would then select one of the five nominees, and the state senate would confirm the final selection.  Judges would then face periodic retention elections.  The proposal mirrors many of the best qualities of existing merit selection systems.

Similar bills have been proposed in the past (including many by Rep. Cutler), without much success.  But you can’t move the needle if you don’t keep trying, and Pennsylvania’s direct elections of judges have not been anything to write home about.  Good luck to the proponents this time around.

Roundup on Pennsylvania’s judicial elections

Pennsylvania voters will go to the polls this coming Tuesday to choose their state judges in their traditional odd-year, contested, partisan elections.  Here are some of the late-breaking stories from across the state:

Finally, in a very positive development, the proposed legislation to shift Pennsylvania from partisan judicial elections to a merit selection system gained some traction when the House Judiciary Committee approved a measure to place the issue before the voters. There is still a long road ahead, but it can be done. And voters in other states have proven more than capable of understanding the benefits of merit selection.

Tuesday  should be interesting.

Legislators and bar association weigh in on Indiana merit selection plan

We previously reported that Indiana legislators are considering a merit selection plan for the judges of Marion County (the Indianapolis area), in light of a Seventh Circuit decision holding the previous election slating process unconstitutional.  Recently, both state legislators and the Indianapolis Bar Association have offered their own opinions of the proposed legislation.