The special-interest apologists who argue for the “merit-selection” of judges often pose as promoters of independence, fair-mindedness and objectivity. Frequently, a friendly journalist takes their bait, not noticing the hook stuck in his mouth.

The latest such journalist is Nathan Bowe of the Detroit Lakes Tribune (MN) in his coverage of a proposal by the Minnesota Bar Association to set up a self-appointed Judicial Election Campaign Conduct Committee. “Our only authority is moral authority—peer pressure and public pressure,” extolls committee chairman David Stowman.

Of course, Mr. Stowman seeks more than mere moral authority. The Bar Association is pushing the Minnesota state legislature to scrap the direct election of judges.

Nowhere does Mr. Bowe show a trace of skepticism in what he is being told. Nowhere does this story quote a contrasting opinion. And nowhere does Mr. Bowe indicate that behind this “non-partisan,” good government movement are highly partisan legal elites and George Soros, the sugar daddy behind MoveOn.org.

Maybe next time Mr. Bowe will look for the other side of the story. A good place to start would be to speak to the four sitting Minnesota district court judges who are skeptical of the so-called “merit selection” system. That system would eliminate Minnesota’s democratic election of judges and create a closed-door committee of legal elites to decide who sits on the bench. Those judges recently wrote: “Citizens should remain justly suspicious of power exercised by a few.”