judgesonmerit.org

As the Pioneer Press explains in an editorial about interim judicial appointees, Minnesota judges “usually take office via a gubernatorial appointment, but then must win re-election to stay in office. This makes it a unique office, out of the flow of daily partisan politics but subject to being sucked in at any moment.” The editorial praises the interim appointment system as a better way to select impartial judges:

Judges should be appointed based on merit and not on political calculus. Fairness, experience and integrity are paramount virtues. We love political battling in legislative races but do not want judicial candidates to be cozying up to interest groups, declaring their views on issues pending before them or attacking foes on television. We want Minnesotans to believe that the judge before whom they are appearing is there for the right reasons and will apply the law impartially.

This is a good summary of the goals of Merit Selection advocates. We want an appellate bench staffed by judges who know and respect the law, and who will apply it without regard to popular opinion, political whims, or the pressures of campaign donors.

Merit Selection is the system designed to accomplish this. While no system can entirely remove politics from judicial selection, Merit Selection frees the process from ever-increasing campaign spending and the exaggerated value of political savvy over ability and experience.

Even one nasty judicial election would have lasting negative consequences, warns Minnesota’s new chief justice, Eric J. Magnuson.

Our citizens trust our judicial system but what happens when you have even one big, nasty, highly-politicized judicial election concerns me greatly,” he said. ”Perceptions of fairness, equity and access I think will be dramatically undermined if the public’s confidence erodes and it only takes one big campaign to do that.

Magnuson argues that Minnesota needs to switch from judicial elections to a system of “retention elections,” as espoused by the commission headed by former Gov. Al Quie. Under the Quie commission plan, a Merit Selection commission would prepare a list of judges, from which the governor would make his appointments. Ultimately, after an initial term in office, the judges would stand before the public in retention elections and it is the voters who have the final say whether to keep or to fire the appointed judge.

If these changes aren’t made, Magnuson predicts that Minnesota will have to endure what Wisconsin suffered last month.

Millions of dollars were spent by special interest groups on ads attacking the candidates as freeing criminals or engaging in political cronyism,” Magnuson said. ”Well-heeled special interests attempting to manipulate the judicial process are no longer the stuff of fictional thrillers written by John Grisham. It’s reality. It’s reality that’s right next door.

It’s also becoming a reality in Pennsylvania, as elections become more and more expensive and attract money from out-of-state special interest groups.

Minnesota is bracing itself for increasingly negative and expensive judicial elections. Tapped by the State Bar Association to be the Chairman of the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee, attorney David Stowman will try to prevent the elections from turning ugly and partisan.

Stowman points out that judicial elections should be different than other elections. “Judges do not have a constituency, they are more like a referee.” This essential role is threatened by one of the biggest problems with judicial elections: the influence of money and the buying of influence. “Certainly none of us would want to be sitting in front of a judge that had taken large campaign contributions from the other side of the counsel table,” he said.

States that have judicial elections, like Minnesota and our own Pennsylvania, should expect judicial elections to become increasingly expensive and nasty. Stowman hopes that the Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee will only be temporary, and that Minnesota will move away from judicial elections. Some are calling for Merit Selection. By removing the money, Merit Selection provides a cleaner, more dignified process.

Link to story; free, requires registration.

As the campaign for Merit Selection progresses, we hear some inaccurate arguments repeated by those who oppose Merit Selection. In an effort to set the record straight, we’ll reveal the truth and clear up these myths.

Myth #5: All Merit Selection Systems Are the Same
Someone once said there as many different judicial selection systems as there are snowflakes. While that’s a bit of an exaggeration, it’s true that judicial selection systems differ greatly depending on where you are. This is also true of Merit Selection systems.

The proposal to implement Merit Selection for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts incorporates the best parts of other states’ systems, and corrects aspects of those systems that are less successful. We outline below how the proposal for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts differs from the systems used by other states. (Visit the American Judicature Society to learn more about other Merit Selection systems.)

The Nominating Commission is Appointed by Elected Officials and Non-elected Entities
Like other states’ nominating commissions, elected officials like the Governor and legislative leaders have a role in appointing members of the nominating commission. However, under the unique Pennsylvania proposal, non-elected entities, including civic organizations, law school deans, unions, business organizations, nonlawyer professional associations and public safety organizations also appoint members to the nominating commission.

The Governor Cannot Request Additional Lists or Additional Names of Recommended Candidates from the Nominating Commission
Under the proposed plan, the Governor is bound to nominate from the nominating commission’s list of recommended candidates. The Governor may not reject the list or request that other names be added to it. This is different from the Merit Selection systems in place in several states, including Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Tennessee.

The Process Involves a Role for the Governor, the Senate and the Public
Under the Pennsylvania proposal, an appellate judge can only be seated after being nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The judge will serve a short initial term of four years, after which he or she must stand before the public in a retention election. If retained, the judge may serve a ten year term, after which he or she will again be eligible to stand for retention.

Several states don’t require legislative confirmation — including Tennessee, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Kansas. And in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, judges do not stand for retention.

Merit Selection systems are as varied and unique as the states that adopt them. We think the one being considered for Pennsylvania’s appellate courts offers a better way to select appellate judges.

Keep visiting JudgesOnMerit.org to learn the truth about Merit Selection.

Minnesota Public Radio reports that in a recent speech, former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor praised merit selection as a good way to choose judges.  She spoke during a forum focusing on changing the way Minnesota selects its judges.  Justice O’Connor particularly noted that merit selection systems increase diversity on the courts: “In my home state with a merit selection system, we got much greater diversity on the bench, both racial and gender. . . . And it’s worked very effectively, more so than the election system did.”

  In Minnesota, there’s growing concern about the fairness of a judiciary chosen by partisan elections. With a Merit Selection bill pending in the Minnesota legislature, the Park Rapids Enterprise has published an editorial urging its readers to contact their legislators in support of the plan, “before Minnesota becomes one of the states where money rules in judicial elections.” You can read the entire editorial by following this link. (free, requires registration)