As the Tennessean reports, the House and Senate have each passed bills to maintain the current system, which uses a nominating commission and retention elections.  There will be some changes to the process, including a reduction in the number of lawyers on the nominating commission.

The Chattanoogan‘s report offers a run down of the votes and also quotes Tennesse Bar President Buck Lewis: “‘We are pleased that it now appears that Tennessee will continue to have a system of merit selection and retention elections for appellate judges.’”

Smart move, Tennessee.

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.

That’s right, Mr. Lewis first failed to be nominated by the commission. Then, a year later, when he was recommended to fill a vacancy, his panel was rejected by the Governor due to a lack of diversity. Yet he still is a champion of Merit Selection:

More than 30 years of experience with selecting and electing judges tells me that the Tennessee Plan is the best plan we have ever had to pick our judges.

Mr. Lewis counts among his reasons for supporting Merit Selection the nominating commission’s ability to screen out unqualified applicants; the commission’s thorough vetting of candidates in a way not possible in the electoral system; and the avoidance of expensive, contentious elections.

It’s hard to imagine turning back the clock to the days when political parties nominated slates of Supreme Court judges. Tennessee would be the only state ever to scrap merit selection and revert back to raw politics.

We hope Tennessee will heed his call, and that Pennsylvanians will also realize why Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges.