“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.
Merit Selection Supporter Challenges Tennessee Judge’s “Constitutional Right” to Contribute to Political Candidates
January 19, 2011
Shira Goodman over at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (part of the $45 million “merit” selection campaign bankrolled by George Soros) was kind enough to link to my post about the recent uproar over political contributions by Tennessee judges.
As I wrote yesterday, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary Wade defends his donations by arguing he has a “constitutional right” to support any candidate he wants.
Goodman is having none of it, quickly dispensing with Justice Wade’s quaint notion that the First Amendment (i.e. the right to free speech in the form of campaign contributions) applies to sitting judges. “Judges should of course have the right to vote,” Goodman allows, “…but judges do give up certain rights when they take the bench – this should include overt political or financial support in elections.”
More Perception Problems in Tennessee
January 18, 2011
Tennessee judges have contributed more than $200,000 to political candidates over the past few election cycles. Some of these judicial contributions have targeted lawmakers trying to change the state’s “merit” selection system in order to give more power over judicial appointments to ordinary citizens, rather than legal special interests. A perception problem? Not according to Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary Wade, who tried to unseat “merit” selection opponent Senator Mike Bell:
“Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn’t mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues. All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.”
Let me get this straight. If Justice Wade makes a campaign contribution, he can just “compartmentalize” it and still render fair rulings. But if he accepts a contribution, suddenly he’s compromised and unable to set aside bias?
Justice Wade is right about his “constitutional right” to donate to the candidate of his choice. But he’s using that “right” to try to block the people of his state from exercising a no less important “right” guaranteed by Tennessee’s Constitution – the right to pick the judges who serve them.
Fortunately for Tennessee voters, Justice Wade’s campaign contributions didn’t keep Mike Bell from reaching the Senate. In fact, he’s been appointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he plans to introduce legislation that would take the “right” to choose judges away from powerful lawyers-only group and return it to the people.