Where’s The Merit?
August 29, 2008
Our friends over at JudgesonMerit recently posted a letter on their website responding to a Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing “merit” selection that the Journal decided not to run. It’s worth examining because it reveals the weak foundations supporting this scheme to deprive citizens of their right to vote for state judges.
The letter begins by suggesting that “merit” selection will cure “many of the infirmities of elective systems.” One of the “infirmities” of democracy that JudgesonMerit (run by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts) wants to protect us from is the prospect of judges raising money for campaigns – funds which might come “from the very same lawyers, organizations and special interest groups” that may argue before the bench. But the cure is far worse than the disease.
“Merit” selection would take away the constitutional right to choose state judges from millions of voters and hand it over to a tiny commission dominated by legal special interests. Under the proposal JudgesonMerit supports in Pennsylvania for example, at least half of the judicial selection panel must be lawyers. In other “merit” selection states, these commissioners typically are appointed by the state trial lawyers association, the state bar and other powerful legal groups. In other words, “merit” selection trades the possibility that lawyers may have some impact over our courts through campaign contributions with the guarantee that legal special interests will control who sits on the bench.
But, JudgesonMerit asserts, giving this power to lawyers is necessary because “it is difficult for the voters to find relevant information about the candidates who are running for the appellate bench.” Translation: They think people aren’t smart enough to choose judges. But this is actually a reason why elections are necessary – so that prospective judges can explain to voters the judicial philosophy that will guide their decisions – decisions that impact the lives of millions of teachers, policemen, doctors and others outside the legal community. Does anyone really believe that voters will be better informed about the views of our public servants in the courts if judges are chosen in secret instead of having to stand before the people?
Of course, this sort of arrogance and elitism doesn’t usually play well with voters. So, JudgesonMerit reassures us, under “merit” selection even some “regular folks” may be accorded the honor of joining the secret tribunals and “examining candidates for the bench.” But isn’t there another, far more efficient process for ensuring that “regular folks” have a say in choosing judges? Oh, yeah – it’s called voting!
Finally, JudgesonMerit informs us that in states such as Missouri and Tennessee, where “merit” selection is being challenged, supporters of democratic elections are “facing tough opposition” – and that’s certainly true. The opposition is particularly tough because JudgesonMerit and many other outfits funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros are spending tens of millions of dollars to keep citizens out of the judicial selection process. While these groups always pose as protectors of judicial independence, their true purpose is ensuring that activist judges who share their left-leaning philosophy, but could never be elected, make their way to the bench. That’s why they’re so committed to eliminating what they see as the real “infirmity” in judicial elections: the participation of the people themselves.