judgesonmerit.org

The Montgomery Adverstiser reports that the Alabama Attorney General will be investigating the conduct of certain outside groups that ran ads and made phone calls to voters during the recent judicial elections. The issue surrounds allegations that false information was spread in these calls about one candidate. The state Bar Association criticized the misinformation and urged the Attorney General to investigate. Although the Attorney General agreed to do so, he argued that the Bar Association’s criticism of the camaign conduct crossed the boundaries into inappropriate partisanship.

The news report makes one wonder, however, whether the tension between the Attorney General and the Bar Association stems more from their differences over the best way to select judges:

King [the Attorney General], an advocate of judicial elections, said another of the association’s news releases portrayed judicial elections as demeaning.

That news release talked about the rising cost of judicial campaigns and the growing role of special interest groups in campaigns.

White [Bar Association president] sent a letter to King on Wednesday calling the news releases “a necessary and appropriate response.”

While reasonable people can and do disagree about how best to choose judges, this debate should not influence action on complaints about campaign misconduct. We hope Alabama will be able to separate these issues and give each the full and fair examination it deserves.

Editorials in the Montgomery Advertiser and the Tuscaloosa News, echoing the call of a current Supreme Court candidate, urge the state to reject judicial elections in favor of Merit Selection.

The Montgomery Advertiser points out the escalating costs of judicial elections and the problems inherent in requiring future judges to raise campaign funds from lawyers and organizations likely to appear before them in the future:

Over the years, the Montgomery Advertiser’s editorial board has asked dozens of judicial candidates if they are affected by these large campaign donations. Almost invariably, each candidate says that he or she can set aside those donations in his or her mind and rule fairly on issues involving the donors.

But asked another way, not about each of them specifically but about judges in general, and many of them admit that it is a problem for some judges.

The Tuscaloosa News asserts: “the perception is that justice is for sale in Alabama. The unconscionable spending distorts the election process at the same time that it erodes the faith of state residents in an independent judiciary.”

Alabama is on the short list of states, like Pennsylvania, that elect all judges in partisan elections. The Montgomery Advertiser thinks its time for a change:

There are several variations on the merit selection theme being used by other states, but virtually any of them would be a major improvement on the nasty, costly and demeaning way Alabama now chooses its judiciary.

The Tuscaloosa News agrees “at least for the state’s highest — and most expensive — appellate offices.”

We hope the people of Alabama will heed the call for reform, and we hope the people of Pennsylvania will also realize that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges.