The Politics of “NonPolitical” Judicial Selection, Cont’d
January 5, 2009
Over the New Year’s holiday, Florida Governor Charlie Crist selected Judge Jorge Labarga to fill a vacancy on the state’s Supreme Court. I’ll leave it to others to judge the impact this selection will have on Florida’s high court – here’s a good summary from Point of Law – but one fact is crystal clear: The idea that “merit” selection removes politics from the judicial selection process is an utter farce.
As American Courthouse readers will remember, Gov. Crist rejected the initial slate submitted by Florida’s judicial nominating commission because he felt it wasn’t sufficiently diverse – a move which earned both praise and condemnation in the media. After a bitter, closed-door fight, the commission sent Gov. Crist an expanded slate.
This decision kicked off another round of very public political blood-letting. One commissioner (Arturo Alvarez) trashed his fellow commissioners for allowing a second vote to add more candidates. The St. Petersburg Times attacked one nominee as “a [Jeb] Bush acolyte” whose appointment “could make a mockery of the state’s judicial nominating process.” The Palm Beach Post was so irate by the commission’s action, it argued that nearly half the commission should resign in disgrace and suggested one nominee’s selection should be challenged in court. One group of legal bigwigs said the commission broke the law by sending the governor a new slate. Another group of lawyers responded with their own letter praising the commission and disparaging the first group.
Gov. Crist’s selection of Judge Labarga has not quelled the controversy.
Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post says Gov. Crist “partially redeemed himself by choosing Jorge Labarga,” while criticizing his two prior selections as “strong social conservatives.” Today’s Orlando Sentinel has an editorial arguing Florida needs “a less political way of selecting judges.” The paper seems to favor going back to the good old days (of 2000) when a single powerful special interest group – the Florida Bar – had more control over the nominating commission.
Giving one special interest group de facto power over who will sit on a state’s highest court might reduce public controversy, but it destroys public accountability. The real answer is to make every public official, including Supreme Court judges, accountable to the people they serve – namely, the voters. And the best system to ensure that accountability is democratic elections. After all, if “merit” selection can’t remove “politics” from the judicial selection process – and Judge Labarga’s tortured path to the high court settles that argument – what exactly is the basis for taking the radical step of denying citizens their right to choose who controls one-third of their state government?