judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the Clarion Ledger asserts that Mississippi’s judicial election system has been undermining confidence in the judiciary:

[T]his state’s judicial elections continue to demean the dignity of the court and to see voters manipulated by special interest groups seeking to hold sway over the judicial philosophies of the courts.

Noting the very expensive and divisive recent elections, the editorial decries the current system of electing judges:

The 2008 judicial elections in the state were a textbook case for why judges should be appointed, not elected. Instead, appellate court seats in Mississippi are like those in many other states.

They are doled out at a political price tag of up to $1 million per judge to candidates who will turn their heads to the sleazy campaign tactics that have come to dictate judicial elections.

2009 is a judicial election year in Pennsylvania.  What will the price tag be for the open seat on the Supreme Court?

A reader’s letter to the Clarion-Ledger decries the state of judicial elections in Mississippi and argues that it’s time for a change.  The reader notes that the elections have become more partisan, more expensive and have attracted more special interest participation in recent years:

Why are political parties, vested interest groups, and lobbyists interested in our state judgeships. Is our justice system now for sale to the highest bidder?

This is a question that many people are asking in states that elect judges.  And polls demonstrate a widely-shared concern that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making.

The letter closes with a challenge that voters in all judicial election states should consider:

If you or I should ever have a case before our Supreme Court, I would pray that the judges’ decisions would be based in law and not partisan politics.

It is time to appoint judges!

We’re hearing calls for Merit Selection down in Mississippi. An editorial in the Clarion Ledger cites recent scandals and increasing campaign costs as reasons to consider moving away from electing judges. Lawyers in the state bar association and the Federalist Society are calling for reform, but there will need to be a big public education effort to convince the public: “the biggest hurdle is general Mississippi tradition of wanting to vote on everything and everybody.”

To combat this common argument against Merit Selection, the author argues:

The reality is voters don’t know very much about judicial candidates, or enough. We have a system that allows inordinate influence by special-interest money. Believe me, dear voters, you aren’t really picking judges. The major races are carefully choreographed: who runs, who gets financed. You just pull the levers.

We understand that it’s very difficult to change from an elective system, but this author points out in stark terms why voting for judges doesn’t really make sense.