Pushing “Merit” Selection Reform in Arizona
October 10, 2012
Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb has a piece today making the case for modest reforms of the state’s “merit” selection system. Under Prop. 115, “merit” selection commissions would have to nominate eight judges, rather than just three under the current system. According to Robb, “expanding the minimum number is badly needed” because “the appellate commission in particular has become an excessively constricting funnel.”
That’s putting it mildly. A sharper description is that the commission consistently tries to cram its preferred nominees down the governor’s throat by throwing up the same names that have been rejected time and time again. As Robb points out:
“Since 2005, there have been four Supreme Court vacancies. The commission has submitted six names for the four positions….Now, since 2005, does anyone believe that there have been only six people interested in and qualified to serve on the state Supreme Court? Is the Arizona legal profession truly that bereft of talent?”
According to Robb, this tendency to resubmit the same names discourages qualified prospective judges from even bothering to apply for a vacancy. Moreover, far from taking politics out of the process, “the current system makes the political gauntlet less transparent and more difficult to understand and negotiate.”
Robb also unmasks the real reason behind opposition to Prop. 115 – namely “the privileged role the [Arizona] Bar has under current law.”
“Why should an attorney who wants to serve on one of these nominating commission have to get the approval of the state Bar? The Bar is hardly a politically neutral organization. It unquestionably lists left.”
For that matter, why should the legal profession enjoy any “privileged role” when it comes to selecting judges? Judges should be accountable to the people, not the Bar – and until those roles are reversed, “merit” selection will continue to be a deeply flawed, deeply undemocratic system for picking judges.
