No Merit for Nevada
July 23, 2010
Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison rolls out the standard boilerplate for why Nevadans ought to give up their right to choose their public servants on the bench in democratic elections and turn the job over to a “merit” panel – where a small cabal dominated by elite lawyers makes all the decisions.
One of the main objections seems to be that judicial races have gotten more expensive – yet she goes on to brag that the “merit” crowd is going to dump $700,000 into the campaign to promote its cause. What’s lacking here isn’t just a sense of irony, but a sense of proportion. In 2008, Barack Obama spent about $50 million more to win the presidency than George Bush and John Kerry combined in 2004. In 2008, the average winner of a House seat spent $1.37 million – more than double the amount spent a decade ago. (thanks opensecrets.org) Should we consider abolishing presidential and legislative elections too?
Morrison also complains that voters stubbornly object to giving up their voting rights, even though the system has produced some “duds.” I suppose it wouldn’t do any good to point out that electing “duds” is a risk we have to take in a democracy. My guess is that most Americans think there’s been at least one “dud” occupying the White House at some time during the last four years.
Unlike citizens in most “merit” selection states (where panels meet in strict secrecy), Morrison has actually seen a “merit” board in action. “The panel had access to [the candidate’s] tax returns, his credit scores, any disciplinary actions, his writing samples, comments from other people, even his health records.” That’s all very reassuring, but can’t voters, armed with the same information, be trusted to make the decision? Why exactly are lawyers and other elites more qualified to determine who is worthy of public service than the people who will be served?