Judicial Selection Reform Pushed in Nebraska
May 16, 2012
Nebraska attorney Steve Grasz continues to push his reform plan to make Nebraska’s “merit” selection system less political and more accountable. In a Lincoln Journal-Star op-ed, Grasz notes that under “merit” selection, political influence is not eliminated, but merely moved behind closed doors, outside public view:
“Instead of the entire electorate participating in and observing the political aspects of the judicial selection process, there is evidence that the system has become one in which the selection of nominating commission members is subject to political manipulation, ideological maneuvering and undue influence by special interest groups.”
Grasz proposes a series of reforms centered around the selection of nominating commission members and the conduct of commission proceedings.
May 15, 2012
Great follow-up from Carrie Severino on the opportunity Missouri voters will have this November to wrest judicial selection out of the hands of the trial lawyers lobby. Who currently controls the all-powerful judicial nominating commission in Missouri, Severino asks?
“In Missouri, they tend to be members of the Missouri Association of Trail Attorneys (MATA). MATA is also known as the organization most likely to challenge tort-reform laws or sue you if you happen to operate a profitable, job-creating business. In fact, eight out of the last ten Bar-members of the appellate nominating commission in Missouri have been members of MATA. Five of those eight were on the Board of MATA, and another two served as the organization’s president. (emphasis Severino’s)
Not surprisingly, Severino points out, the MATA-dominated commission produces a series of hard-left judicial nominees who can be counted on to carry the water for the trial bar once they reach the bench.
Missouri To Vote On “Merit” Selection Reform
May 11, 2012
“A radical destruction of the judiciary.” That’s what one hysterical “merit” selection proponent has labeled a constitutional amendment in Missouri that would allow the democratically elected governor to appoint four members to the state’s judicial nominating board instead of the current three. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot this November, after the Missouri House voted 84-71 to send it to voters.
So why such hysteria over such a modest reform? Because under “merit” selection as currently structured, the Missouri Bar and other powerful legal special interest groups such as the trial lawyer lobby have a virtual hammerlock on judicial nominations. The amendment would shift the balance of power to the governor and introduce at least a small measure of public accountability into the judicial selection process.
As the birthplace of “merit” selection, Missouri is also a closely watched bellwether. “Merit” selection proponents, including the Soros-financed network, will launch a full court press to preserve the status quo. It will be a tough fight – but Missouri voters have the best chance in decades to chip away at the power of special interest groups and reassert some control over the judicial selection process.
More Rumblings in Iowa
May 10, 2012
Iowa Family Policy Center VP Chuck Hurley tells KCCI in Des Moines that the group will likely oppose the retention of state Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. Hurley’s organization spearheaded the 2010 drive to dump three Supremes who overturned the Iowa’s legislature’s defense of marriage law.
Michigan’s Partisan Judicial Task Force
May 4, 2012
The Lansing State Journal has an editorial praising the recommendations of Michigan’s Judicial Selection Task Force. I’m reading the report right now and will share my thoughts soon.
For now, it’s enough to say the State Journal gets it wrong starting with the second word of its editorial claiming the task force was “bipartisan.” In fact, the task force was heavily stacked with prominent Democratic activists and members of the state’s legal aristocracy, including the former Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, a former Democratic candidate for governor, three former presidents of the State Bar of Michigan, and two former heads of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
With former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor serving as the Task Force’s honorary chair, this whole thing was pre-wired to call for abolishing democratic judicial elections and push for “merit” selection – which as I noted earlier this week is under fire in Missouri, where it originated. More to come.
Fighting Judicial Activism in Florida
April 19, 2012
A movement called Restore Justice 2012 is launching a fight against judicial activism by Florida’s Supreme Court. The group’s president, Jesse Phillips, says Restore Justice 2012 is dedicated to “heightening public awareness of our court system” so voters can make “an informed decision” over whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices up for retention election this fall.
Obama Supports Judicial Elections?
April 3, 2012
After seeing the Solicitor General bumble his way through last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments, President Obama yesterday warned that it would be wrong for nine “unelected” justices to overturn the law since it was passed “by the strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
The Real Source of Low Public Regard for Courts
March 30, 2012
Campaigners for “merit” selection like to claim that judicial elections and the fundraising they can entail are responsible for the low public opinion about the state of the judiciary. But Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Cupp and Justice Terrence O’Donnell have a different explanation. At a meeting this week with Wooster, OH business and community leaders, Cupp and O’Donnell suggested that judicial activism, not democratic elections, are the true source of public discontent with judges:
“There is a separation of power in the state and country, ‘and in my view we need to honor and respect [that] separation and interpret law according to plain meaning.’ Cupp said.
“The image [of the courts] was hurt because decisions made were not in conformity with what the legislation and the law was, but they were made by the whim of the court, O’Donnell said. Some justices on the court figured they knew better what justice meant than the will expressed in the legislature through the policy-making branch of government …”
Judicial Fundraising Heading to the U.S. Supreme Court?
March 28, 2012
A “deeply split” full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2010 ruling by a three-judge panel to restore Minnesota’s restrictions on judicial fundraising. Five judges joined the main opinion, two wrote concurring opinions, and five dissented.
Minnesota’s fundraising restrictions prohibited judicial candidates from seeking campaign contributions except under very limited circumstances. In the main opinion, Judge Kermit Bye “concluded that the state’s rules are constitutional because Minnesota has a compelling interest in preserving not only judicial impartiality but also the appearance of it.” Dissenters held that the restrictions violate the First Amendment.
The case was brought by former Minnesota Supreme Court candidate Greg Wersal, who previously contested Minnesota’s restrictions on speech by judicial candidate. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled those restrictions unconstitutional in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White. Wersal said he will attempt to challenge the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Speaking Out for the People in Pennsylvania
March 27, 2012
Earlier this month, Pennsylvania’s House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on legislation that would abolish the right of Pennsylvania voters to choose their judges and hand that power over to an unelected, unaccountable commission. The hearing was stacked with “merit” selection proponents, many of which are charter members of the Soros network. Still, a few witnesses willing to stand up for the rights of ordinary citizens did manage to squeeze their way into the hearing, including Widener Law School Professor Randy Lee. Among the highlights of his testimony:
“We elect judges in Pennsylvania because historically the people of the Commonwealth have recognized that people should have a say in who will rule their lives ….One might, in fact, fairly argue that judges are the elected officials with the most direct and personal power over our lives.”
“ … there is a presumption in America that decisions are to be made democratically unless there is a particularly good reason not to make them that way. To reflect the depth and strength of this presumption, we call the right to vote a fundamental right.”
“ … it must be noted that the citizens of Pennsylvania are regularly entrusted with other decisions associated with the justice system and seem to perform them admirably….Given that we consider the participation of citizens vital to the determination of guilt or innocence in courts, one would assume we would consider these same people capable of selecting judges.”
“ … we entrust citizens with the election of the Attorney General and county district attorneys, and these positions require as much legal expertise and commitment to justice as does the position of judge. If the Commonwealth were to determine that the people were not fit to continue to select judges, the case could be made that they should not be electing these other law related officers either.”
“ … the bill allows for the possibility that some appellate judges might be appointed in such a way that there would be no one the people could hold accountable for the appointment.”
Thanks to Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts for posting this testimony.