More “Merit” Selection Judges Behaving Badly
January 9, 2012
Last week, Shira Goodman over at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts – a charter member of the $45 million+ George Soros campaign to end democratic selection of judges – suggested that the ethical transgression of one Philadelphia Traffic Court judge represented an indictment of judicial elections. This has become a favorite meme of the “merit” selection crowd – but as recent judicial scandals in New Mexico and Missouri demonstrate, judges chosen under secret selection hardly have a monopoly on virtue.
To satisfy myself that I wasn’t being too hasty, I spent about 30 seconds on a Google search this weekend and came up with a few more examples of “merit” selection judges behaving badly. In Maryland, the award goes to Judge Richard Palumbo, who dismissed a protective order against a man who later doused his wife with gasoline and set her on fire. A few months earlier, when the wife appeared before Judge Palumbo and said she wanted an immediate divorce, Palumbo shot back, “I’d like to be 6-foot-5.” A state Senator later accused Judge Palumbo of having an “anti-victim, anti-woman attitude.” Obviously a judge chosen strictly by “merit.”
In Florida, Judge Paul Hawkes resigned last November over charges related to his role in constructing a new $50 million courthouse locals refer to as the “Taj Mahal.” According to news reports, Judge Hawkes “pushed for mahogany walls, granite countertops, and 60-inch television screens in every office.” Hawkes was accused of “destroying public records pertaining to the court’s budget” and browbeating a “furniture vendor” into “underwrit[ing] a trip for Hawkes and two relatives.” Since the Florida judicial nominating commission meets in secret, I guess we’ll never know what “merit” commissioners saw in Judge Hawkes.
I’m not claiming that all judges chosen under “merit” selection are ethically challenged. That would be Shira Goodman-style demagoguery. Instead, I think there are two conclusions any fair-minded observer could draw:
1) Judges are human and prone to the same temptations to abuse power faced by every public servant;
2) We need strong mechanisms to keep judges accountable.
The primary objective of democratic judicial elections is to provide that accountability; the primary objective of “merit” selection is to destroy it.
Trial Lawyers Seek Bigger Payout, Push MD Legislators to Boost Auto Insurance Mandates
April 1, 2010
Baltimore Sun blogger Jay Hancock has an interesting item on the trial bar’s activities in Maryland. According to reports, the trial lawyers are promoting legislation that would force Maryland’s car owners to carry a higher amount of insurance in the case of accident. Why? Trial lawyers want “a pay raise,” Hancock argues.
“Lawyers typically take home 30 percent of a settlement, and auto cases are often settled to the limit of the insurance coverage. That would be an incentive to lobby for higher limits even if other factors stayed equal. But they haven’t. Thanks to the recession, campaigns against drunk driving and safer cars, auto injuries and deaths have plummeted…No wonder the trial bar wants a raise. So many lawyers, so few crashes. A basic business rule is that, when you have fixed overhead and your volume goes down, you try to raise prices.”
The bill enjoys the support of Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley, has already passed Maryland’s House of Delegates and is headed to the Senate.
Maryland Black Caucus Blocks “Merit” Selection
March 30, 2010
Doug Gansler, call your office. In a blow to the Maryland AG, the state’s legislative black caucus has blocked Gansler’s proposal to scrap democratic judicial elections of circuit court judges in favor of so-called “merit selection.” (Read my previous post on the proposal here.)
The Baltimore Sun reports that the proposal is “languishing in key committees” and that ”the Legislative Black Caucus’ strong opposition has doomed Gansler’s bill.”
Apparently the black caucus didn’t buy Gansler’s argument that “merit” selection is necessary because minority judges are often thrown off courts for reasons of “outright bias” in “predominantly white counties.”
Perhaps these legislators had heard of the problems “merit” selection has caused in Florida, where Governor Crist frequently complained that the state “merit” board failed to submit qualified minority candidates. The problem grew so bad in Florida that the state’s NAACP filed an amicus brief with the state Supreme Court charging that “the specter of racial discrimination has been raised” by the commission’s actions.
Rolling the “Merit” Selection Rock up the Hill in Maryland
March 5, 2010
Voters in Maryland have twice blocked attempts to disenfranchise themselves when it comes to selecting judges. They have twice voted down proposals to end democratic judicial elections and adopt a “merit” selection system. But the “merit” selection crowd is pushing the rock up the hill once again – this time with the help of Attorney General (and future, would-be governor) Doug Gansler and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (The Baltimore Sun has an excellent write up here and you can also read an op-ed of mine the Sun was kind enough to print here. )
“The independence of the judiciary is something we all ought to care about,” Justice O’Connor told a legislative panel in Annapolis, MD. It’s tempting to pass by this bromide with a thoughtful nod of the head, but there’s actually an interesting point here.
Everyone says they want judges to be “independent” – but independent from what? In my view, voters want judges who are independent from the influences of special interests – they want judges who will reach fair and impartial decisions. It’s up to voters in democratic elections to evaluate whether a judge has met this standard. “Merit” selection, however, delivers an entirely different kind of independence – namely judges who are “independent” from (and totally unaccountable to) the people they serve.
Baltimore attorney William H. “Billy” Murphy nailed this point, telling the Sun reporter that under “merit” selection voters…
“…have no idea what is going on behind closed doors. With the electoral system, you will know. If you don’t like it, and it stinks, you can do something.”
When America’s Founders wrote our Constitution, one of the primary goals was to protect the people from the government. “Merit” selection proponents want to turn that principle on its head by protecting the government (our public servants on the bench) from the people.
Baltimore Sun OpEd: Gansler Merit Proposal
February 2, 2010
On Friday, the Baltimore Sun published an oped I wrote in response to a recent proposal by Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler. Gansler is pushing to replace the democratic election of circuit court judges in Maryland with merit selection and retention elections.
Gansler argues his plan “offers [voters] a tool to hold the judge accountable.” But as American Courthouse readers know, such a scheme merely puts legal elites in charge of picking judges and assures a virtual lifetime appointment to the bench.
Pay No Attention To The Politics Behind The Curtain
May 29, 2008
Those who believe we should replace the democratic election of state judges with a Secret Selection committee should read The Washington Post’s “Maryland Moment” blog.
Today’s post reveals the nasty politicking that occurs behind the Secret Selection committee’s closed doors. Three members of Maryland’s Judicial Nominating Commission have resigned in protest due to heavy political pressure to appoint the son of the president of Maryland’s State Senate to a district court bench.
Even blogger Alan Greenblatt of Ballot Box, a “merit selection” supporter, had to admit:
“…this just shows, yet again, that an appointment system is no bar to politics playing a role in filling out the judiciary.”