merit selection

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.

A columnist for The State, a newspaper in South Carolina, writes about a unique wrinkle arising out of that state's system for selecting the chief justice of its supreme court: legislators might break with tradition of selecting the longest-serving justice as a matter of course.

The current chief justice and another current justice on the court both have gone through a vetting process with a merit selection commission. Usually, the most senior justice is elevated as a matter of tradition to become the chief justice. But Supreme Court Justice Costa Pleicones is challenging incumbent Chief Justice Jean Toal.

"The Legislature will break precedent if it elects Mr. Pleicones. But even if it re-elects Mrs. Toal, the status quo already has been interrupted, making it much easier for lawmakers to break with tradition and skip over Mr. Pleicones and, who knows, perhaps skip over Mr. Beatty, possibly even select a chief justice who isn’t on the court," Cindi Ross Scoppe wrote.

The issue with all of this? Politicizing a branch of government that is supposed to be apolitical, Scoppe argued.

After the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down tort reform legislation because it contained multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution, state lawmakers are holding hearings on how judges are selected, the Associated Press reported. Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon said he believes "the Oklahoma Supreme Court has acted at times as a ‘Super Legislature. It is my opinion the court has attempted to derail laws and reforms that are not only constitutional, but benefit our great state and provide greater opportunity and freedom for our citizens," the AP reported. However, others argue that replacing a merit selection system with elections k"could lead to scandals similar to one in the 1960s in which state Supreme Court justices were accused of accepting bribes and fixing decisions," according to the AP.

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...