An oped by Martin Dykman in the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) rehashes many of the standard, elitist arguments about the promised benefits of judicial nominating commissions.

Dykman leads with the recent decision of Wisconsin voters to oust sitting state Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler – a “dirty and expensive $5 million campaign” where a “dubiously qualified circuit court judge” defeated “the only African American justice.” Impugning the motivations of a majority of Wisconsin voters as racist is a pretty serious charge – but of course Dykman offers nothing to back up this smear.

He also fails to tell his readers that Butler was snuck onto the bench by political appointment after he was soundly defeated in his own bid for election. Upon his appointment, Butler radically shifted the court’s balance, and aligned Wisconsin’s highest judicial authority with one of the state’s most powerful special interest groups, the trial bar – confirming the fears of Wisconsin voters who believe Butler never deserved a seat in the first place.

The vote to remove Butler neither racist nor dirty – it was a democratic decision by a majority of Wisconsin voters to reestablish a balanced, moderate court.

Dykman breathes a sigh of relief that Florida judges don’t have to face contested elections. But Florida’s judicial nominating commission created in 1976 has done little to de-politicize the court. In fact, Florida’s Supreme Court has earned a nationwide reputation as one of the most activist in the country, as the fiasco of the 2000 presidential election – where Florida justices tried to rewrite election law from the bench until they were blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court – amply demonstrates.

Dykman also frets that Florida’s governor now appoints all nine members of the state’s judicial nominating commission and that the Florida Bar no longer controls the majority of appointments. But who elected the Florida Bar to anything? Why should a special interest group completely unaccountable to the people enjoy such vast power?

Elites have no problem elbowing ordinary voters aside and turning control of 1/3rd of the state government over to a handful of lawyers sitting on a commission who have no public accountability. At least Florida voters still have a tenuous connection to judicial selection because they elect the governor that appoints the commissioners. A far better approach would be restoring full, democratic elections that put power where it belongs – in the hands of the people.