judgesonmerit.org

The Star-Telegram offers an interesting editorial arguing that last week’s judicial elections demonstrate again why judicial selection reform is needed:  “after the latest round of high-dollar, highly polarized judicial elections, it could be time to be seriously talking again about alternatives to the expensive partisan contests that have been our norm for far too long.”

The editorial goes on to evaluate briefly the different types of selection systems in use across the country.  Here is the assessment of partisan judicial elections — the current system in Texas and Pennsylvania:

Partisan elections provide direct accountability and give voters at least one criterion for evaluating candidates: party affiliation. But judges are supposed to be impartial, not partisan; races are funded largely by those who have a stake in court cases or want to sway the law, and voters often know so little about the candidates that judges can get swept into or out of office based only on party affiliation.

The editorial then comes down in favor of gubernatorial appointments followed by retention elections:

Appointment-retention would avoid the unseemly spectacle of judges raising campaign money, reducing the appearance of special-interest influence. The politics might not be eliminated but would be reduced if candidates were recommended by a bipartisan panel. Retention elections still might result in judges being ousted for unpopular rulings, but public education about the proper role of the judiciary would be needed to counter that type of improper pressure.

Although our favored system looks a little different and would include evalution by a nominating commission, nomination by the governor, confirmation by the Senate and then periodic retention elections, we appreciate the Star-Telegram’s analysis.  We hope that trends in judicial elections across the country will motivate the public to take a close look at how we pick our judges.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS