judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the St. Louis Dispatch praises the work of judicial nominating commissions in Missouri and recommends that newly appointed commissioners — especially those who actively oppose Merit Selection — seek the advice of long-serving commissioners:

Take Stephen F. Doss, for example. He’s a Republican businessman who is serving for the second time on the selection commission for the St. Louis Circuit Court. . . .

Mr. Doss says he is a true believer in direct democracy, but he has come to believe that the Missouri Plan’s merit selection process works better in choosing judges.

He considers the process to be genuinely non-partisan. He notes that many judges appointed to the circuit court bench by the governor of one party later have been promoted to appellate judgeships by a governor of another party.

He says that all commission members have the opportunity to be full and equal participants in the process. “When people get in that room, they try to be good citizens,” he said.

Judges who’ve gone through the process also have good things to say about the work of the nominating commissions:

Lay members who worry that deliberations may be dominated by the lawyers or judges would do well to visit with the appellate court judges who have participated in the process. They speak glowingly about how judges, lawyers and lay people work collegially and productively, reaching consensus on candidates an overwhelming majority of the time.

These assessments are encouraging testaments to the important role of lay citizens on judicial nominating commissions.  We hope Pennsylvanians will get the opportunity to choose to use a judicial nominating commission for the appellate courts and see first hand how well it works.

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.