More on Tennessee
February 2, 2012
David Oatney weighs in on a proposed constitutional amendment in Tennessee to establish in law what the state has already achieved in practice – namely pick judges by secret “merit” selection rather than in open democratic elections by “the qualified voters of the State,” as the state Constitution prescribes.
The Wrong Direction for Tennessee
January 30, 2012
Tennessee Senate Speaker and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey “says he’ll hit the campaign trail to get a proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2014” to affirm the state’s “merit selection” system. Many have long doubted the constitutionality of the scheme, which has been used since 1971, given the Tennessee Constitution’s requirement that judge be “elected by vote of the people.”
Ramsey has been a longtime critic of the current system and pressed much-needed reforms to make the nominating commissions less subject to special interest control. Ramsey says his goal is to have “conservative judges” who “interpret the law, not make law.” His assurances that a “merit” selection system newly embedded into Tennessee’s Constitution is based largely on the fact that he and fellow Republican House Speaker Beth Harwell now control who sits on the judicial nominating commission. That’s fine as far as it goes – and is certainly preferable to having commissioners hand-picked by the trial bar, as was the previous practice.
The better option, however, is putting the choice back in the hands of the people themselves through democratic elections. William F. Buckley’s quip that he’d rather be ruled by the first 500 people in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty wasn’t just a flash of his trademark wry humor. The wisdom of the people can’t be replicated by a group of elites assigned to make decisions for us. The fact that in Tennessee they’ll be “our” elites (at least temporarily) rather than “their” elites is really beside the point.
“Merit” Selection Foes Growing Stronger in Tennessee
January 12, 2012
The Knoxville News Sentinel has named “merit” selection critic Sen. Mike Bell one of its “five legislators to watch in 2012.” As the Chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee, Sen. Bell “is in a new position this year to put more power behind his voice.” The committee has the “first shot at deciding whether various state boards and commissions will die or be given new life.” The state’s “merit” selection board – which is controlled by legal special interest groups – is due to sunset this year without favorable action by Sen. Bell’s committee.
Tennessee Debates Judicial Selection
December 8, 2011
There is growing recognition that Tennessee’s “merit” selection system is broken. While the legislature has taken steps in recent years to make the system more accountable, state Senator Brian Kelsey has introduced a bill that would replace “merit” selection with a model based on the federal system. Tomorrow Sen. Kelsey will square off against Tennessee Bar Association president Danny Van Horn in a debate sponsored by the Federalist Society.
Any reform that takes power away from legal special interest groups like the state Bar and the local trial lawyers association is a step in the right direction. Of course, the most accountable system is the one spelled out in Tennessee’s Constitution – which requires that judges “shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.” The current “merit” selection system is set to sunset on June 30, 2012 unless it is reauthorized by the legislature.
New Recusal Rules Pushed in Tennessee
December 8, 2011
With “merit” selection under fire in Tennessee, the Soros-bankrolled campaign is pushing new recusal rules that would give trial lawyers more power to challenge sitting judges and dictate who hears their cases. Among the groups pushing for these new rules are – surprise, surprise – the Brennan Center and Justice at Stake, each of which receives millions from Soros’ Open Society octopus to push courts sharply to the left.
Countdown Underway for End to Tennessee “Merit” Panel
August 15, 2011
Tennessee’s Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) will cease to exist less than a year from now - June 30, 2012 - unless the state legislature votes to give the “merit” panel a new lease on life. (A recent article from the Knoxville News Sentinel has the details.)
The last time the JNC was about to “sunset” - 2009 - legislators nearly let the panel expire because it had become so deeply partisan. It looks like it might be just as difficult to secure renewal this time around.
The first step to renewing the panel is getting the state House and Senate Government Operations Committees to support the extension and move legislation forward. The bad news for “merit” proponents: key members of the Senate committee are strongly opposed to the JNC and are threatening to block its renewal.
Sen. Mike Bell, Vice Chairman of the Goverment Operations Committee, has vowed “to do all that I can to see that the commission has problems being renewed.”
Sen. Stacey Campfield is also a key member of the committee. He’s long been very vocal about his opposition to the JNC and he first questioned the constitutionality of “merit” selection in Tennessee three years ago, writing:
“…I doubt that that system ["merit" selection] is anything close to what our state’s founding fathers had in mind when they said, ‘The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state.’”
The constitutional questions surrounding the JNC continue to linger and legislation has been introduced which would attempt to clarify the legality of the “merit” panel by amending the state Constitution. Tennessee voters would have to approve of such an amendment — no small matter. When given the choice, not only have voters across the country consistently rejected the “merit” selection system, voters in Tennessee have, too.
But, while the future may appear uncertain for the Tennessee JNC, one thing is guaranteed - the George Soros “merit” machine will be cranked into gear and will again be spending its millions to turn back the democratic tide in the Volunteer state.
Can the Tarheels Keep Pace with the Volunteers?
May 17, 2011
Last week, Tennessee decided to boost its economy the right way. Rather than spending billions of dollars that it doesn’t have, the state opted for a simpler, more sustainable approach: it put caps on liabilities and punitive damages.
Tennessee was one of the few remaining states in the Southeast that had not yet amended its laws to prevent excessive lawsuits. Now, according to State Senator Mark Norris (R), the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act” has “leveled the playing field” for Tennessee both regionally and beyond. “It’s much more than tort reform” Norris said. “We must be competitive with other states.” With sensible and fair liability limits, Tennessee will be a more attractive option for prospective businesses – like Volkswagen. Just last month the German auto manufacturer built its first car in its new Chattanooga plant, a plant that has already spent over $686 million dollars in local and state contracts.
Now, it’s North Carolina’s turn. Tomorrow, “Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses” hits the House floor. The bill proposes a number of standard reforms, including limits on medical liability litigation, limits on attorney fees in personal and property damage, and limits on landowner liability for trespassers. The bill also has a powerful component: liability protection for pharmaceuticals approved by the FDA . Though there’s a lot at stake for the Tarheel State, so far the local media outlets aren’t paying much attention.
Last December, the University of North Carolina beat the Tennessee Volunteers in the Music City Bowl. Now, it’s time to match Tennessee’s score on tort reform.
“Merit” Selection Challenged in Tennessee
March 31, 2011
Legislation to junk Tennessee’s troubled experiment with “merit” selection and return to democratic judicial elections – as specified in the state’s Constitution – took a step forward this week when Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey cast the tie-breaking vote to advance the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The move would END the reign of legal special interest groups in picking judges, which has shifted Tennessee’s courts in a sharply ideological direction.
As Vanderbilt University Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick has documented, between 1995 and 2008, the lawyer-dominated selection commission nominated twice as many judges more affiliated with the Democratic Party (67%) than with the Republican Party (33%). The bill must still clear the Senate Finance Committee before a full floor vote.
Let’s hope the politicians side with the voters and let the people decide, instead of the club house gang.
How “Merit” Selection in Tennessee Infects the AG Office
February 15, 2011
Tennessee’s “merit” selection plan isn’t just politicizing the state’s courts and putting trial lawyers in charge of picking judges, it’s also infecting the selection of one of the most important offices in the state – the Attorney General. Unlike every other state in the nation, Tennessee allows the Supreme Court to choose the Attorney General. Recent history strongly suggests that the judges chosen by the trial bar and other legal special interest groups are bringing the same political biases to the selection of the AG.
According to research by Nashville attorney J. Ammon Smartt, since “merit” selection was adopted 40 years ago, “all of Tennessee’s attorneys general who served for any significant period of time were affiliated with the Democratic Party.” How’s that for a coincidence?
Over that same period of time, Smartt reports, Republicans won five of the 10 gubernatorial races and 10 out of 15 U.S. Senate races. Smartt writes that “it seems odd that a ‘merit-based’ process would lead to single-party dominance of such an important office …”
Actually it’s not odd at all – once you understand that, whatever its original intent, “merit” selection has been hijacked by the Left so they can impose their own ideological preferences on state courts.
Smartt raises the obvious question about the “significant lack of democratic accountability” for Tennessee’s AG. But to “merit” selection supporters, the logic is obvious. If “experts” can do a better job picking judges than the people, surely the judges chosen by those “experts” have a better idea than ordinary citizens what qualities are necessary in an AG. But why stop there? Why not empanel a dozen political science professors to choose the Governor? Or create a commission of teachers to choose School Boards? Once you accept the idea that “experts” are better qualified than the people to decide who will rule, there’s no point in stopping until you get rid of that tiresome notion of democratic consent altogether.
Lifting the Rock on the “Merit” Selection Campaign
January 25, 2011
“Merit” selection proponents like to pretend that the entire “merit” selection campaign just bubbled up from the grass roots over citizen concern about judicial independence – a line the gullible press typically laps up. Gary Marx demolishes that farce in a two-part post on NRO’s Bench Memos.
As Marx demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt, “merit” selection is not some organic, grassroots uprising, but a vehicle for placing trial bar-connected, left-leaning judges on state courts. In Iowa, Marx points out that three of the state Supreme Court’s current members are former members of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association, while a fourth justice tied to the trial lawyer lobby was thrown out by voters in November.
Voters are starting to figure out the game. That’s why, as Marx points out, states such as Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma and even Missouri (“merit” selection’s birthplace) are debating whether to amend “merit” selection to reduce the influence of special interest groups or scrap it altogether.