judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Commercial Appeal by Tennessee Bar Association President Buck Lewis makes a good case for why Merit Selection is the best way to select judges. He boils it down to two main reasons:  “money and talent.”

Mr. Lewis cites the rising cost of judicial elections across the country and the perception of the influence campaign contributions have on judicial decision-making as good reasons to keep Tennessee judges out of the fundraising business.

He also argues that Merit Selection opens up the judiciary to a more qualified candidate pool:

There are many fine lawyers who apply for judicial vacancies under Tennessee’s present system who would never subject themselves and their families to a statewide contested campaign which requires them to travel the state for months, raise millions, abandon their law practices, and be the subject of opponents’ attack ads.  Contested elections may be advantageous for lawyers who have statewide name recognition or those who heavily advertise on television. But for most lawyers, and in my view, for most of the lawyers who we would most want on our appellate courts, contested elections would present a tremendous barrier to entry.

Money and talent.  To us, these sound like good reasons to stick with  — or change to — Merit Selection.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS