Readers of this space know I’ve done several posts about judicial selection in Tennessee. Now TN State Senator Dewayne Bunch has written a piece in the Cleveland, Tennessee Banner, in which he accurately describes the stakes not only for the quality of judicial decisions but for democracy itself. (Hat tip: Stacey Campfield)

In Tennessee, the Senate declined to renew the “merit selection” system this year, and unless the Legislature acts, it will fortunately come to an end on July 1, 2009, restoring to the people the right to select their judges, as the Tennessee state constitution requires.

Bunch’s piece once again shows that contrary to the arguments of the pro-“merit selection” crowd, the history of “merit selection” is full of politics. Bunch provides some Tennessee history: 1970, a Republican was elected as Governor, and the Democratic Legislature restricted the Governor’s ability to appoint judges by establishing the Judicial Selection Committee, or what Bunch rightly describes as the “special interests committee” as special interests hold 15 of the 17 seats.

In Tennessee, judges appointed on the recommendation of this committee are subject only to retention elections, in which no one is permitted to run against them. Given the requirement of the Tennessee Constitution that “judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state,” Bunch is correct to write that “Only in Nashville and with the special interest controlled nomination process, could our courts ever rule that this system would be constitutional.”

In other words, judges selected by “merit selection” unsurprisingly ruled that they would not have to face opponents in their next election. That’s like asking the turkeys if they want to vote for Thanksgiving.