“Merit” Selection Debated in Arizona
May 24, 2010
This past weekend, the Prescott, Arizona Daily Courier debated the pros and cons of “merit” selection. Arizona’s “merit” panel is, of course, frequently held up by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as worthy of emulation by other states.
“Merit” Selection Setback in Arizona
February 18, 2010
“Merit” selection suffered a setback earlier this week – right in the backyard of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who has become the most high-profile lobbyist for this system which empowers legal special interest groups to select judges.
Under a proposal passed by Arizona’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, voters could have the opportunity to scrap “merit” selection and replace it with a federal-type system where judges are appointed by the governor with confirmation by the Senate.
Although Arizona’s “merit” commission is less top-heavy with lawyers than panels in other states, Senator Jack Harper suggested the system has been skewed toward keeping conservative judges off the bench: “There’s no chance that this committee is ever going to be middle of the road.”
The system has also completely insulated Arizona’s top judges from public accountability. Since “merit” selection was adopted in 1974, only two judges have lost their seats in retention elections.
The proposal still has a long way to go before it reaches voters – and you can expect special interest groups led by Justice at Stake and Justice O’Connor to fight tooth and nail against it. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone standing for the not-so-radical idea that judges – like every other public official – should be accountable to the people they serve.
Justice O’Connor Comes Out Against Secret Selection of Judges
March 2, 2009
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told a group of Missouri law students that the state’s judicial nominating commission should no longer be allowed to meet in secret – endorsing a key provision of legislation moving through the Missouri Legislature that would reform the state’s “merit” selection system:
“You can’t have secret proceedings.”
Justice O’Connor admitted, however, that even though her home state of Arizona has open judicial selection meetings, interest in the judicial selection process seems confined to the legal community. Perhaps allowing voters to press their noses against the glass window while a group of lawyers decides who will control one-third of a state’s government just isn’t enough. That’s why the Missouri reform legislation goes further by diluting the influence of special legal interest groups in the judicial selection process and making the process more accountable. No word in the media reports on whether Justice O’Connor supports these steps as well.
Of course, the real answer to making judicial selection more open and accountable is to give the power to choose judges back to the people, through democratic elections. Justice O’Connor opposes judicial elections because fundraising in these races has risen to what she calls “obscene” levels. But this is a criticism that can be applied to all campaigns – including the Obama campaign, which spent an astounding $750 million-plus to win the White House. If campaign cash is poisoning judicial selection, should U.S. Senators who accept money from Trial Lawyers, Inc. be prohibited from voting on nominees to the federal bench?