That is the question I address in my latest guest post at the IAALS Blog. Check it out!
Tag: merit selection
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:
- The Philadelphia Democratic City Committee has had a rough few days. First, it endorsed ten candidates for what it thought was ten open positions on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the state trial court). But the state Supreme Court subsequently cut the number of open seats to nine, leaving the Committee with one too many endorsements. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Bar Association announced its intent to hand out flyers with its own endorsements — based on neutral evaluations, not party affiliation — at the same times and locations as the Democratic City Committee.
- The Philadelphia Inquirer has the lowdown on every judicial candidate in the city (Democrat and Republican) here.
- 24 candidates are vying for six judgeships in Northampton County. The job pays $90,000 per year, requires the judge to perform weddings and handle traffic tickets. A law degree is not required.
- Candidates in a single trial court race in Westmoreland County have collectively spent more than $268,000 — nearly twice what the job pays.
- As we reported earlier this week, Martin Sheen continues to stump for one judge seeking reelection. Nothing particularly wrong with that, although Sheen has seen fit to blur the endorsement lines between his real identity and that of the president he once played on TV.
- An Erie newspaper has editorialized against the current election system, noting that it is “no way to staff a competent bench.”
- And the Reading Eagle offers an editorial endorsement of the Pennsylvania Bar’s candidate evaluations.
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.
Indiana passes merit selection bill for Marion County
The bill establishing merit selection for judges in Marion County, Indiana (the Indianapolis area) has passed. Previous coverage here, here, and here.
(h/t Malia Reddick)
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.
Update on state legislation affecting the courts
State legislatures continue to propose and advance bills that will impact their respective court systems. Here are some of the latest developments:
- Indiana’s proposal to convert Marion County (Indianapolis) to a merit selection system is heading to conference committee. The latest version of the bill calls for a 14-member nominating committee to choose three final candidates for the governor’s selection; four of the committee members would be chosen from voters. Previous coverage of the Indiana bill and its history is here.
- In Arkansas, a new bill would change the way state judges are elected in Cumberland County Superior Court. The current election system grants seats on the bench to the top two vote-getters among all candidates. The bill would require candidates to declare which of the two judicial seats they are seeking.
- The Florida House of Representatives has passed an amendment to the state constitution that would impose term limits on state appellate judges, including supreme court justices. This is a terrible idea, but happily it is still in its infancy. The state senate would also have to approve the move, and then voters would have to approve it in 2018. Similar efforts in others states have been defeated in recent years after they were exposed for the transparent political proposals that they were.
- Nebraska’s unicameral legislature has advanced a bill to raise judicial pay in the state.
The Interdependent Third Branch 