judgesonmerit.org

Peter Hardin at Gavel Grab reports that for the first time Iowa will make interviews of state Supreme Court candidates available to the public through a live stream on the internet. The Des Moines Register announced this change along with the commission’s plan to interview applicants the week of January 24. Iowa uses a merit selection system for selecting its judges, and the change in the selection commission’s procedure is an attempt to increase openness in the judicial selection process.

Some have argued that the interviews are uninteresting and viewers will be bored. We disagree. Even if the questions during interviews are about procedural and technical issues, opening candidate interview to the public gives people an insight into the process and a sense of the candidates being considered for the bench. It gives people the opportunity to see for themselves that: “[t]he applicants are competent lawyers who are going to have hard questions asked by other lawyers.” One commission member, Guy Cook, believes opening the interviews to the public allows people to determine for themselves whether the commission acts in a “careful, thoughtful way to nominate the best qualified.” It demonstrates that transparency is a priority, and improves what is already a good judicial selection system.

An editorial in the Des Moines Register criticizes governor-elect Terry Branstad for suggesting that new justices on the Iowa Supreme Court should follow the will of voters who recently ousted three justices.

Looking at Branstad’s comments on the court’s gay marriage decision and the future of the court, the editorial describes potential problems with his views. The editorial is primarily concerned that this is mischaracterizing the role of judges, and that this is a call for judges to subvert the civil rights of the minority to the will of the majority. It goes on to state that the Iowa Constitution’s Bill of Rights was: “created to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority.”

We agree that judges play a special role in our government system, and their job is not always to rule in favor of public opinion. The judicial branch is separate from the other branches of government, and should act independently of the public, the executive, and the legislature. Instead, courts should be guided by the law. In terms of judicial selection, this means that for retention elections to provide a meaningful evaluation of judicial performance, the public must be educated about the unique function of judges. Only with education and understanding can the public best play their role in guaranteeing fair and impartial courts.

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.

An editorial in the Des Moines Register praises the Merit Selection system Iowa uses to select its judges:  “Iowa’s system is far better than electing judges, which introduces politics and the taint of campaign cash into the judiciary.” We, of course, agree, and hope that Pennsylvanians soon get the opportunity to decide if we should change the way we select judges.

The editorial also looks to the recent retention election results in Iowa as evidence the system is working.  This year, all the judges on the ballot were retained.  The editorial views that as a positive sign:

In the past 35 years, voters have removed only four judges, which is how the process should work. Removal shouldn’t be based on the popularity of decisions, politics or ideology. It’s merited only when there is evidence of misconduct or that a judge is unfit, and where the court system’s judicial-disciplinary process has failed.

What the editorial describes is a meaningful retention process as an integral part of a Merit Selection system.  This has been a key feature of the Merit Selection legislation introduced this past year in Pennsylvania.