In 2007, the Nevada Legislature approved switching to a “merit selection” system for the first time. If the Legislature does so again in 2009 and the voters approve in 2010, District Court and state Supreme Court judges would be nominated by a special-interest dominated committee, and the Governor would have to pick one of three nominees, rather than being elected by the people as they are now.

But the process is actually beginning this week with the state’s new Judicial Selection Commission interviewing candidates to replace a retiring Family Court judge. As Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons says, “the process we would go through if this amendment passes in 2010 would be very similar to what you see [today], so the public would get a preview if they think this is a good process or mechanism for electing judges[.]”

Gibbons is simply wrong. First, “merit selection” isn’t a system for electing judges at all but rather one for selecting judges by special interests. The public has no say. That’s the whole point. Second, the process in Las Vegas this week will not be “very similar” because if the amendment passes, the process will be closed, As KLAS TV reporter Mark Sayre correctly notes, the process is being opened to the public for the first time today to offer a window onto how it might be done in the future. Or might not be done in the future, because since the proceedings would be closed, we’d never know. It reminds me of the old joke about elections in some countries in the developing world: “one person, one vote, one time.”

Doubtless, the Judicial Selection Commission will be on its best behavior today, so as not to scare the voters before 2010. But the real tests come later. What happens, for instance, if a Family Court judge issues terrible rulings, for instance not paying sufficient attention to the welfare of a child in state custody or ignoring a victim’s pleas in a domestic violence case? Under the current system, voters can toss the judge out; under “merit selection,” only the lawyers and special interests get to decide. And if the judge chooses to run for reelection, no one can run against the judge, making it more difficult for the judge to lose his seat.

Don’t think this can happen? Well, consider a couple recent incidents in Maryland including a judge who allegedly told defendants in domestic violence cases to look for another partner because “women are like buses — they come by every five minutes.”

The voters, not the special interests, deserve to decide who their judges are.