judgesonmerit.org

In response to issues arising in courts around the country, the Arkansas Supreme Court has formed a Judicial Election Task Force to consider changes to their system of judicial selection. Currently, Arkansas holds nonpartisan judicial elections for all positions on the bench. However according to the Arkansas Supreme Court, “Judicial elections are becoming much more expensive, vitriolic, and are receiving more interest from third-party donors.” The Task Force plans to focus on four areas: voter guides, rapid response teams, runoff election changes, and recusals. To aid this endeavor, the group will be utilizing resources created by fair courts organizations including the National Center for State Courts, Justice at Stake, and the American Judicature Society. PMC wishes the Task Force the best as they strive to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

KYW 1060 reported on the American Judicature Society report on the degree of overlap between contributors to the campaigns of Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices and those appearing before those justices in Court.

The news report quoted PMC’s Lynn Marks explaining that although the report does not draw any conclusions about whether the contributions influenced judicial decisionmaking, “Each dollar raised and spent raises doubts in the public’s mind about whether or not justice is for sale.”

The report quoted Pennsylvania’s Chief Justice Castille’s response:

‘I actually share that opinion to some degree myself. . . . The money does have an outward appearance of a lack of fairness in the system.’ Castille says that’s one of the drawbacks to elected judges.

We very much agree with this assessment and hope Pennsylvanians will have the opportunity to determine whether to change how we select appellate court judges.

Washington State University is reporting that its recent survey on judicial selection (conducted with the American Judicature Society) reveals that voters are dissatisified with the current electoral system and favor implementing a Merit Selection system.  The two elements that were most appealing about Merit Selection were the use of a nominating commission and the inclusion of regular retention elections.

Survey respondents valued the idea of a nonpartisan nominating commission composed of lawyers and nonlawyers.  They believed the commission would focus judicial selection on qualifications and also would limit the Governor’s discretion in making judicial appointments.

Central to the survey’s findings was the respondents’ beliefs that a Merit Selection system with regular retention elections would actually provide more opportunity for voter input in judicial selection.  Voters felt that having every judge stand for retention at regular intervals would increase accountability and give voters an important chance to weigh in on a judge’s performance.

The researchers observe that:

It is clear that in a head-to-head choice, after having considered in some detail the major characteristics of both the current nonpartisan election system and the hypothetical commission-based system, the registered voters surveyed in Washington during the 2008 election season clearly prefer the commission system.

We hope voters in Washington will have an opportunity to decide whether to implement a new way to choose their judges.

During the past few months, we’ve been following stories from the campaign trails in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia and other states electing judges.  Our focus has been on campaign spending — where the money comes from and where it goes, what the candidates are saying, and the public reaction to the campaigns.  If you’re looking for  information about who won each election, visit Gavel Grab for a good collection of articles about all the races as well as Justice At Stake’s  press release on the elections.

In addition, the American Judicature Society has issued a press release about how voters in four counties — two in Alabama, one each in Kansas and Missouri, have voted in favor of Merit Selection.  These voters were given the chance to decide whether or not to change the way they selected their judges.  In three cases, they changed from elections to Merit Selection; in the fourth, they rejected a proposal to replace a  Merit Selection system with judicial elections.

We hope Pennsylvanians will soon get the same opportunity to decide whether or not to change how we select appellate court judges.

Gordon L. Doerfer, president of the American Judicature Society (AJS), has issued a statement in response to the Wall Street Journal’s most recent attack on Merit Selection. In this statement, AJS sets the record straight about the composition of judicial nominating commissions and the history of success of state Merit Selection systems.

AJS points out that the Journal’s recent characterization of the Florida and Missouri nominating commissions as dominated by plaintiffs’ trial lawyers is wrong. In fact, lawyers of all types are involved in selecting or suggesting lawyer members of these commissions. AJS goes on to explain that a recent survey of corporate attorneys revealed that they rank state courts selected through Merit Selection uniformly higher than state courts selected by partisan elections. It is a myth that judicial nominating commissions are dominated by a particular constituency or segment of the bar.  In fact, most nominating commissions include several seats for nonlawyers.

The cornerstone of Merit Selection is the use of a nominating commission to screen and evaluate candidates. This is the special element lacking in both elective and purely appointive systems.

A blanket condemnation of judicial nominating commissions is irresponsible and misleading. It also demeans the work of the dedicated commissioners, all of whom serve without compensation, and calls into questions the judgment of the many governors of all political parties who rely upon them to nominate the best qualified judges.

Thanks, AJS, for setting the record straight about judicial nominating commissions.