judgesonmerit.org

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.

According to the News-Leader, two opponents of Missouri’s Merit Selection plan are taking that old adage to heart.  Although John Gentry and Sally Hargis opposed the campaign to bring Merit Selection to Greene County, MO this year, they each applied to serve on the Greene County nominating commission.  Governor Matt Blunt appointed Ms. Hargis to the local commission, but asked Mr. Gentry to serve on the appellate court nominating commission.  Mr. Gentry agreed.

It’s interesting that despite their opposition to the system, these individuals will now become part of it.  We wonder whether this will change their perceptions about how the system works.  If not, will they continue to condemn a system of which they are an integral part?

The Missouri Plan long has served as a model for other states seeking to design Merit Selection systems.  In recent years, there has been some conflict between the Governor and the nominating commission about the lists of recommended candidates.  This week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof proposed changing the composition of the nominating commission.

An Associated Press piece in the Columbia Missourian reports that Hulsof believes the nominating commission is dominated by plaintiffs’ trial lawyers.  Hulshof’s plan calls for replacing the three attorney seats, filled by election among lawyers in different geographic regions, with three retired judges.  He also proposes eliminating the seat for the Chief Justice of the state and replacing it with a retired Supreme Court justice.

In addition, Hulshof argues that the commission should be required to submit five names to the Governor, rather than three and he proposes giving the Governor the power to request a second list.  Under this proposal, If no one on either list is acceptable to the Governor, the Governor may nominate anyone of his or her choosing, subject to Senate confirmation.  This is a significant change from the current system, where the Governor’s rejection of the list of nominees results in an appointment made by the nominating commission.

Hulshof’s opponent in the governor’s race, Jay Nixon, claims the new proposal would make judicial selection even more political.  He recommends making some changes to the system, such as publicizing the names of all applicants considered by the commission, but opposes the changes to the nominating commission and the procedural changes recommended by Hulshof.

We have concerns about the Hulshof proposal, particularly the provisions related to the Governor’s selection of a nominee.  We will be watching what happens and keeping you posted. Visit Gavel Grab for more on this story.

Critics of Merit Selection like to conjure up visions of a shadowy cabal of lawyers, meeting in a smoke-filled room to decide who has the right political leanings to be a judge. In reality, the people who serve on judicial nominating commissions are usually thoughtful men and women, lawyers and nonlawyers, who view the task of recommending qualified judicial candidates as an important civic duty.

Florida’s Judicial Nominating Commission is preparing this week to interview 49 candidates for two vacancies on that state’s supreme court. In an article about the work involved, members of the commission talk about how much time and effort they invest in the process.

Commission Chair Bob Hackleman calls the job “a grave responsibility,” and stresses the “need to be thorough.” Commission member Arturo Alvarez gives this perspective:

I really believe in the merit-selection process. It’s much like sitting on a jury. We actually say to ourselves, ‘My God, this is an important thing.’ Me, as a trial lawyer, I know the power a single judge can have over things.

We’re glad that the members of the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission take their responsibilities so seriously. We hope their work goes smoothly, and we hope that critics of Merit Selection will think of them before being impugning the motives of men and women serving their states with pride.