judgesonmerit.org

An article in the Des Moines Register announces that Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins still believes that Merit Selection is best way to pick judges. Refusing to “second guess” the recent election in which three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted, Wiggins declared that it was time for the court to move on.

Speaking as a panelist at an event sponsored by the Iowa chapter of the American Constitution Society, Wiggins expressed confidence in the selection committee’s role in creating fair and impartial courts. He stated that he believes they provide the governor with a list of the most qualified candidates. Ben Stone, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and another panelist, emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary:

There can be no civil liberties – there can be no individual freedom – in a country that does not have an independent judiciary. And in a state that doesn’t have an independent judiciary, all of the rights that are at stake in the state courts are up for grabs.

We agree that fair and impartial courts are necessary, and that Merit Selection is the best way to achieve such courts. Retention elections are an important component to the Merit Selection system, but there is a problem when retention elections are used to target judges on single issues. As PMC recently stated in an editorial in the Legal Intelligencer, retention elections should be an opportunity for the public to evaluate the whole of a judge’s tenure. Formal evaluations of judicial performance and ongoing public education about the role of the courts and judges are tools that should be used to ensure that the public understands the role of retention elections. Retention elections give the public the responsibility of maintaining fair and impartial courts, and public education is key to making this system work.

This past weekend, the American Constitution Society held its annual conference in Washington D.C.  One of the panels addressed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton and its impact on states that elect judges.

According to the Blog of the Legal Times and Gavel Grab, the participants did not reach consensus on the best way to select judges, but we’re persuaded by a comment made by Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver.  Responding to Justice At Stake’s Bert Brandenburg explaining that after Caperton “the problem then becomes how much is too much for a judge to accept and still hear a case,”  Judge Kourlis argued:

[E]ven asking that question is “unseemly.” By asking what the threshold is, she said, people are saying there is an amount that is acceptable. ” Any time money is in the courtroom, you’re going to have the perception that it is affecting the judge’s decision.”

Judge Kourlis advocates a Merit Selection system as the answer.  We agree with her: the only way to solve the problems caused by money in judicial elections is to get judges out of the fundraising business.