7 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sam Morris
Former justice of the Arizona Supreme Court Ruth McGregor listens as retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor makes a point for having judges appointed rather than elected Tuesday, September 21, 2010, during a meeting with the editorial board of the Las Vegas Sun.
Published Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010 | 3:15 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010 | 3:46 p.m.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is used to being impartial.
But on the subject of how judges are selected, she has a strong opinion: Judges should be appointed.
"The Constitution has been a great document in our country, and it does not allow for elected judges," O'Connor said today during an editorial board meeting at the Sun.
O'Connor is touring the nation this week talking to policymakers, media and the public about the merits of a judicial appointment system.
In Nevada, she's lobbying for the passage of ballot Question 1, which if passed in November would amend the state constitution to take the selection of judges out of voters' hands.
Instead, an appointed board would review applications from judicial candidates and select three finalists. The governor would then appoint a judge from the list. The public would be able to review candidate evaluations, attend commission hearings and comment on the process.
Twelve to 25 months after being appointed, the judge would stand for a “retention election,” in which voters would decide with an up-or-down vote whether he or she should remain on the bench.
Proponents say the system results in more qualified judges, a better informed electorate and fewer pay-to-play scandals. If judges don't have to raise money for campaigns, they won't be beholden to campaign donors.
"The money makes judges politicians," argued Sam Lionel, a Las Vegas trial lawyer who supports merit selection.
A Harris Poll found that 76 percent of voters nationally believe campaign contributions affect a judge’s courtroom decisions. A quarter of judges themselves said they are impacted by campaign cash.
But a recent poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal found that Nevada voters oppose Question 1 by a rate of almost 2 to 1. About a fifth of voters were undecided.
Arizona instituted merit selection in the mid-70s. O'Connor, then an Arizona judge, admitted the change was hard to sell at the time but said it worked out extremely well. Colorado and Utah, along with 27 other states, select judges by appointment.
"You hope judges will be qualified, fair and impartial -- not good vote-getters," O'Connor said.
Judges raising campaign funds from lawyers and potential litigants who may appear before them. The current system makes impartiality almost impossible.
Appointments are not perfect, but current system is extremely problematic. Electing judges may have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but it is obsolete in 21st Century Nevada. There is way too much emphasis on fund raising these days for elected offices these days and it is better to keep the judges out of it.
Justice O'Connor was a great justice and I have a great deal of respect for her views.
and one of these days I will do a better job of proofing my stuff before posting. Apologies.
So answer this question. After the appointed judge passes his/her retention vote, are they judges for life? Wouldn't they lay low for those 2 or 3 years to get appointed-for life? I'm a bleeding liberal, and that's what I'd do.
Then I'd be able to never pass a death sentence on anyone. And there would be nothing you could do about it. Nothing. Go to Massachusetts if you want to see lifetime hacks in action. Overpaid government life timers.
Vote no. At least if a judge issues an outrageous decision, we can do something about it at the ballot box.
"You hope judges will be qualified, fair and impartial -- not good vote-getters..."
If that could only be true. Still, Justice O'Connor makes an excellent point for appointments over elections. Certainly having to grub for election money means selling favors, no one can get around that no matter how many laws are made.
Turrialba -- you made some excellent points, too.
In the past attorneys at law were a totally opposite breed than what infests government now. Until at least a century ago most lawyers got their primary education from Blackstone, not law school. One of the best U.S. Supreme Court Justices ever was John Marshall (1801-1835) -- he had only six months of law school (and that was to impress a girl), today our law schools and one University bear his name.
Now we've allowed a private group -- the Bar associations -- to completely take over an entire branch of government.
"The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law ..... When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?" -- the Honorable Edith Jones to Harvard's Federalist Club "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School" 2/28/03
There is a very strong argument that proponents of this amendment are not making. Studies done by a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman (maintained by the Fraser Institute) and independently by the Heritage Foundation have found that economies with an independent judiciary have a stronger economic foundation - basically companies that invest are more trusting of places that have an independent and appointed judiciary. This is a conservative argument that conservatives have preached around the world and has resulted in reform. It is interesting that I do not hear those conservative voices being loud proponents on this issue. Basically, an independent judiciary has been found to be a statistically significant variable in terms of promoting investment - something we really need right now.
If the Law has a provision for getting rid of bad or activist judges i.e. by ballot for removal, I would have no objection.
Another possibility would have the appointment limited to 4 years.
Lifetime appointments are dangerous in the states as the judges do not answer to anyone, as the US Federal court have proven.