Archive for the 'Judicial Selection Reform' Category
Groups in some states are working to cement policy gains by taking stances on the way judges are selected, reports an online publication devoted to sexual and reproductive health and justice issues. The article quotes Justice at Stake about special interests’ seeking to influence judicial elections.
“Anti-Choice Groups Seek to Stack State Courts,” declares the RH Reality Check headline. It spotlights efforts to dump merit selection of Kansas Supreme Court justices and give the governor direct appointive authority; and against replacing elections with merit selection of judges in Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
“Special interest groups of many stripes have known for years now that judicial elections can provide an opening for political influence and spending that they believe will advance their agendas,” said Laurie Kinney, JAS director of communications and public education. Read moreNo comments
An unusual, hybrid process for choosing judges in New Mexico, which combines judicial screening commissions, partisan elections and retention (up-or-down) elections, has come in for editorial criticism from the Rio Rancho Observer.
“Judicial selection process leaves much to be desired,” the editorial’s headline states. It examines the recent process for filling a new district court judgeship in Sandoval County, using a judicial nominating commission followed by gubernatorial appointment; it appears the newly appointed judge will be replaced by a different, elected judge after November.
The judicial nominating commission’s vetting of candidates is valuable, the editorial says, for choosing the best-qualified judge. It continues, “But what value is its time and where is its place in the selection process if its recommendations are, in effect, set aside by a political party?”
You can learn more about New Mexico’s hybrid process for picking judges from the American Judicature Society’s “Judicial Selection in the States” website. The American Judicature Society is a Justice at Stake partner organization.No comments
Supporters of the effort urging citizens to vote “No” on Amendment 2 argued that the proposal tramples on a requirement in the constitution to elect appellate judges, The Tennessean reported. However, a version of the state’s current merit selection system has withstood court challenges. The current system includes a judicial screening panel and gubernatorial appointment of judges combined with retention (up-or-down) elections when a judge seeks a new term. Read moreNo comments
“I cast my ballot against judicial elections,” writes Jessica Levinson, who teaches at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. Her essay is entitled, “Why voters shouldn’t be electing judges.”
In an explanatory piece about how judicial elections for lower courts in California work — or fall short of working — Levinson points out how little meaningful information voters know about judicial candidates and how lawyers who appear before judges are most likely to make contributions in judicial elections. She goes on to cite the “New Politics of Judicial Elections 2011-12” compiled by JAS and two partner organizations:
“It is problematic for judicial candidates to ask for and receive money from those who may have cases before them in the future. A 2013 report by the Brennan Center, the National Institute on Money in State Politics and Justice at Stake detailed the pitfalls of such a system.” Read more
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, said he would not join an effort by fellow Republicans to defeat three state Supreme Court justices in retention elections this August, nor would he defend the targeted justices.
When asked why he would not join the campaign effort of Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, Haslam said, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, “I think on an election like this, I’m trying to think of the best way to put that, to let the candidates themselves speak for why they should be retained and as the person who would be appointing their replacement I don’t think it’s a proper role for me to play.”
Haslam also said, according to the Associated Press, that the ouster effort could “muddy the waters” for the fate of a proposed constitutional amendment he backs to help preserve an appointive process for selecting appellate Tennessee judges (see Gavel Grab for background about the amendment). Read moreNo comments
An editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune argues that, “Antipathy toward constitutional amendments at the 2014 Legislature is understandable,” but that should not stop a judicial reform amendment from being placed on the November ballot.
The editorial admits it’s a long-shot that the amendment, which would replace contested judicial elections with “retention” elections, allowing voters to remove a judge from the bench but not to install his or her replacement, will go before voters.No comments
Bipartisan leaders kicked off this week an initiative to build voter support for a proposed constitutional amendment to help preserve an appointive process for selecting appellate Tennessee judges.
“The way we choose our judges — the importance of our judges having the confidence of our people — is the fundamental bedrock of any government,” said former Republican U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson. “If you don’t have that, you don’t have anything else.” He joined Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, and former Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, at the kick-off event, The Tennessean reported.
In a Tennessean op-ed, Thompson and Bredesen wrote, “Passing Amendment #2 will not only bring clarity and certainty to the way Tennesseans choose our Supreme Court justices and other appellate judges, but it also will add new accountability and a stronger voice for Tennessee voters in the selection process.” Failure to pass the amendment, they added, “could lead to out-of-state special interest groups trying to buy our courts and influence the selection of our judges.” Read moreNo comments
The Oklahoma state House resoundingly defeated a proposal to change the composition of the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission in a way that critics said would politicize the process of selecting judges.
“You’re injecting an extreme amount of partisanship into the process,” House Democratic leader Scott Inman said about the legislation to alter a merit-based process for choosing judges that has operated for nearly half a century.
The House rejected the Senate-passed measure in a 65-31 vote, the Associated Press reported.
Republican Rep. Dave Dank said the screening panel was established by popular vote in the 1960s following a scandal. Regarding the current legislation, he warned, ”This thing is serious.” Dank added, “It’s the third branch of government. And it needs to be treated with the utmost respect.” Read moreNo comments
A proposal to change the way some members of Oklahoma’s 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission are chosen continues to be embroiled in controversy.
Because the proposal would allow the governor, House speaker, and Senate president pro tem to make 14 of the 15 appointments, “If you came before that commission and you weren’t somebody that was in good standing with the Republican party, what chance do you have to get the job?” asked John Tucker, currently a member of the commission. Republicans control the House and Senate, and a Republican is governor.
According to a Public Radio Tulsa report, the proposed change “is more likely to lead to courts that are more reflective of the people,” said University of Pittsburgh professor Chris Bonneau. Read moreNo comments
The House Rules Committee advanced to the chamber’s floor a proposal to shift the way some members of the 15-member Judicial Nominating Commission are chosen. Members of the state Bar now choose six attorney members. The legislation would have the House Speaker choose three attorney members and the Senate president pro tem appoint three.
“My team has grown weary with Republican attempts to meddle with the third branch of government,” said House Democratic leader Scott Inman, according to the Associated Press. He said proposals to wrest away more legislative control over picking appellate judges was an effort by Republican leaders to exert greater political influence. Read moreNo comments