Archive for the 'Merit Selection' Category
As a $200,000 injection of outside money from a national group (see Gavel Grab) changes the focus of a Cole County, Missouri election for Circuit Court, a St. Louis Post editorial calls for changing the way judges are chosen there.
Cole County voters would do well to follow the model of Greene County voters, who decided in 2008 to halt electing local judges and instead adopt the merit-based selection system that is used to choose local judges in St. Louis and Kansas City, and all state appellate judges, the editorial says.
“The administration of justice is too important to have questions about whether one donor, or a group of donors, can buy their own judicial outcomes by using their cash to tilt an election,” the editorial asserts. Read moreNo comments
From an op-ed critical of the Alaska Judicial Council and a rebuttal by a council defender, you can learn about controversy over a nonpartisan entity established at Alaska’s statehood to evaluate judicial candidates within a merit-based selection system.
John Harmon, an Anchorage educator and a former Fortune 500 corporate attorney, wrote recently in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, “Alaska promotes its judicial system as ‘merit’ based, but the actions seen from the Council appear to be those of partisan politics.”
This week Barbara Hood, a retired attorney and a founding board member of Justice Not Politics Alaska, wrote a Valley Frontiersman reply asserting that the council is doing its job well. “In recent years, members of Alaska’s judiciary have come under attack by political groups with agendas,” she said. “Now the same special interest groups seek to reshape our justice system by targeting the council itself.” Read moreNo comments
One of the latest local editorial boards to declare that there’s something hugely wrong with judicial elections works at the Beloit Daily News in Wisconsin.
When it published an editorial about reforms for the public to consider, the editorial board spotlighted merit selection of judges. Here is what the editorial said, under the headline “Do the people want to take charge?”
“APPOINT THE STATE’S top judges, identified and selected by a merit commission, rather than electing them. The ugly Wisconsin Supreme Court elections — dominated by partisan interests and tainted by big money — have become an embarrassment, and worse. Decisions of law are colored by partisan politics, over time eroding the people’s trust in the judicial branch. Without a doubt, people want the courts to be a fair referee, not just another partisan branch of government.” Read more
Arizona marks the 40th anniversary this year of its adoption of merit selection for choosing appellate judges and Superior Court judges in its largest counties. In an Arizona Republic op-ed, Chief Justice Scott Bales says the system has “allowed Arizona’s judiciary to earn a national reputation for fairness, efficiency and innovation.”
The Chief Justice’s op-ed is largely explanatory about how merit selection works to seat well-qualified judges, and about the Judicial Performance Review system, established by voters in 1992, to which all merit-selected judges are subject. Justice Bales also writes of high regard nationally and in the state for Arizona’s system: Read moreNo comments
The Denver-based Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) and its Quality Judges Initiative have released a new report on the judicial nominating commissions used to select supreme court justices in 30 states.
The report is entitled Choosing Judges: Judicial Nominating Commissions and the Selection of Supreme Court Justices. The report states in its conclusion: Read moreNo comments
The issue has been percolating lately (see Gavel Grab), and now Roy Ockert, editor emeritus of The Jonesboro Sun, has written a CourierNews.com op-ed urging consideration of a shift from nonpartisan elections to the “Missouri Plan” of merit selection.
In Arkansas, Ockert writes, “we the people are still electing our judges, but the process is becoming corrupted.” He says the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for special interest groups to raise large sums and then target and sometimes smear judicial candidates, who are limited by ethics restrictions in their ability to respond. Read moreNo comments
Newly-appointed Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Jeff Bivins is campaigning for a Tennessee ballot initiative that would maintain the merit selection of appellate judges, The Republic reports.
The current system, in which the Governor appoints judges from a panel approved by a Judicial Nominating Commission, has been criticized for not providing for enough public input. However, some critics contend that this provision is unconstitutional under the Tennessee State Constitution, which says that justices “shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.” Judges currently face periodic up-or-down retention elections.
The amendment that Justice Bivins is campaigning for would preserve the current system but also enable the input of the state legislature on issues concerning judicial appointments.No comments
A Letter to the Editor of Triblive by Lynn A. Marks and Suzanne Almeida published yesterday argues that Pennsylvania’s system of judicial elections ought to be replaced with a system involving merit selection.
The letter’s authors, who are involved with Justice at Stake’s partner organization Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, write, “The requirement in the revised Code of Judicial Conduct that judges disqualify themselves from hearing cases involving large donors makes good sense. But it can’t address the underlying problems with selecting judges through expensive, partisan elections. An overhaul of the way we choose our statewide judges is needed.”No comments
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said this week that he believes electing state judges is a mistake and that Arkansas should consider shifting to a method like Missouri’s, combining an appointive process and retention (up-or-down) elections when judges seek a new term.
The Associated Press reported McDaniel’s remarks in an article that was headlined, “Couples ask justices to recuse in marriage case.” Some couples challenging an Arkansas ban on marriage of same-sex couples have requested that any Arkansas Supreme Court justices who intend to run for re-election step aside from hearing an appeal in matter. The plaintiffs say legislators have employed “intimidation tactics” to influence the outcome of an appeal before the high court.
In June, the Arkansas Legislative Council approved a resolution declaring that state Judge Chris Piazza had “overstepped his judicial authority” and that urged the state Supreme Court to reverse his ruling (see Gavel Grab). Judge Piazza had struck down a state ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Read moreNo comments
As Gov. Sam Brownback prepares to make his first pick for the Kansas Supreme Court, there is media commentary comparing the open selection process with a more secretive process for selecting Court of Appeals judges.
An editorial in the Lawrence Journal-World commends the first open-to-the-public interviews of state Supreme Court applicants, to be held soon by the Supreme Court Nominating Commission.
“Public interviews, along with public votes on whether to retain justices on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, offer Kansans good opportunities to observe, evaluate and, if needed, reject judges who don’t measure up,” the editorial states. “The transparent process for interviewing applicants for the Supreme Court further supports the merit selection of judges over the closed, more political system now in place for the Court of Appeals.” Read moreNo comments