judicial selection

Constitutional amendments have been proposed to transform the selection of Kansas appellate judges, the Topeka Capital-Journal's Tim Carpenter reports. One plan would abandon a merit-selection system in which a nominating commission forwards finalists for Supreme Court vacancies to the governor. The governor already has the power to pick Court of Appeals judges outright. Another plan would institute elections for both appellate courts.

Jeffrey Jackson, a law professor at Washburn University in Topeka, testified during a legislative hearing that "judges should not be reshaped into politicians who compete for contributions and work the campaign trail."

David Schultz, writing on MinnPost, argues that Minnesota's system for selecting judges needs to be changed. While judges are supposed to be elected, "studies have shown that approximately 90 percent of all individuals who become a judge in Minnesota do so initially by gubernatorial appointment, thereby circumventing the election process." Secondly, judicial candidates rarely face contested elections, and "more than a quarter of Minnesotans opt not to vote for judges, or simply vote based on familiar-sounding names that are Nordic." Third, judicial candidates, who rely on donations from lawyers for their campaigns, are going to be even more awash in contributions after court decisions invalidating restrictions on fundraising. Schultz suggests an appointed system, including fixed judicial terms or limitations on the selection of judges by the governor.

The National Law Journal's Amanda Bronstad provides an overview of ballot initiatives affecting the courts that voters will be deciding to accept or reject:

In California, voters will decide if the $250,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases should be annually adjusted for inflation. If approved, the cap would be raised to $1.1 million.

In Tennessee and Florida, there are initiatives to change those states' constitutions regarding the selection of judges. In Florida, the governor would be allowed to prospectively fill some judicial vacancies. In Tennessee, the governor would be able to select nominees for the appellate courts.

In Louisiana, there is an initiative that would end the requirement that judges retire at the age of 70.

In Nevada, there is an initiative to establish an intermediate court of appeals.

Heather Sweetland, a retiring judge in Minnesota, wrote in an opinion piece for the Duluth News Tribune that diversity is important in the selection of new judges. Minnesota has a merit selection system in which a commission, appointed by the governor and the Minnesota Supreme Court, suggest a slate of candidates for the governor to choose new judges from.

Sweetland said diversity doesn't just mean gender and ethnicity, but diversity in practice experience: "It’s important to have a diverse judiciary. This is more than requesting applicants who are women or minorities. It includes having people on the bench with a wide variety of legal experience. Attorneys who have been in private practice are crucial additions to the bench. People who have served as public defenders, private-defense counsel or prosecutors are also important."

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports on legislation that would change how judges are selected in Pennsylvania. Judges are "not like other politicians, who knock on doors for votes, run races with more media coverage and compile easily-digestible records of their votes," and many voters do not know about judicial candidates in any great depth, the paper reports.

"Proponents of the change, including former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, say judges' jobs shouldn't depend on fundraising prowess and popularity," the paper further reports.

The Knoxville Daily Sun has run a report on the Tennessee Bar Association's position in favor of merit selection to fill judicial vacancies. The bar association's board of governors also voted to support a constitutional amendment "that provides for gubernatorial appointment, legislative confirmation and retention elections for judges." The governor has said he would consider the merit of candidates for his appointments, if the constitutional amendment is adopted by voters in the election a year from this month, according to the report.

The Lexington Herald-Leader has this good yarn about a Kentucky Supreme Court justice who denies seeking campaign donations from a lawyer facing investigations, as well as a fraud lawsuit, over allegations he steered clients to an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration:

"In early 2012, Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott repeatedly drove to the Floyd County office of disability benefits lawyer Eric C. Conn, which is a chain of interconnected trailers along U.S. 23, fronted by a one-ton, 19-foot-tall statue of Abraham Lincoln. Scott, who represents Eastern Kentucky on the high court, was on his way to raising $332,390 for a bruising re-election battle that fall. Conn was a multi-millionaire facing at least two federal investigations and a fraud lawsuit for allegedly rigging medical records and steering hundreds of his check-seeking clients to a judge who improperly approved their claims. A U.S. Senate committee spent five hours last week criticizing Conn's law practice at a nationally televised hearing. The men thought they could be useful to each other."

The lawyer ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor for making straw donations to the justice's reelection campaign in the names of his employees, The Herald-Leader also reported.

Almost 40 years ago, Arizona adopted a judicial merit-selection system in which a nonpartisan commission recommends a panel of at least three candidates for judicial vacancies, and the governor must make his or her judicial appointment out of those nominees. Then Arizona enacted a law this spring requiring that the commission submit at least five nominees to the governor unless two-thirds of the commission rejected an applicant. Today, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the law violates that state's consitution. Court reformers, including the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake, opposed the change. According to Justice at Stake, the law "was an attempt by legislators to throw open the courtroom doors to greater political influence on the judiciary." Here's the full statement from Justice at Stake: http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsroom/press-releases-16824/?jas_applaud...