No “Merit” for Virginia
December 13, 2011
Virginia Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is promoting a proposal to shift control of the judicial selection process from the legislature to a “merit” selection commission and the Daily Press out of Newport News has an editorial in support. Bolling argues that the current system is susceptible to political favoritism, while the editors call for a judiciary that is “independent and impartial.” But “merit” selection won’t end cronyism or produce more impartial judges – in fact, it will make these problems worse.
In neighboring Tennessee, for example, the state’s “merit” commission kept submitting the name of the former head of the Tennessee Democratic Party even after Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen had already rejected the nomination. Over the last several years, the Tennessee legislature has taken steps to reduce the power of special interest groups on the commission, such as the state trial lawyers association, and a new bill has been introduced that would end “merit” selection altogether and replace with the federal model.
In Missouri, the “merit” selection commission has turned the judicial nominating process into a rigged game controlled by the powerful trial bar. In September, the former president of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers was nominated to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court. No surprise there – considering the “merit” commission includes a former and current member of the Missouri Association of Trial Lawyers Board of Governors, plus the wife of one of the state’s wealth trial lawyers.
In Iowa, voters took the unprecedented step of dumping three “merit” commission-chosen Supreme Court justices in the November retention election after the Court overstepped its authority by overturning the legislature’s ban on gay marriage. As the Wall Street Journal put it at the time, “the three Iowa justices were fired because they put their own political preferences above their commitment to the law.”
Like every other public servant in American democracy, judges must somehow be accountable to the people. Under “merit” selection, judges are accountable to no one. That’s not judicial independence; it’s judicial supremacy.
No Merit for Virginia
August 27, 2008
An editorial from the Roanoke Times calls for reforming Virginia’s judicial selection process that makes the process “free of political influence” – but then promotes the one system that ensures that powerful special interest groups will control who sits on the bench.
Right now, Virginia judges are chosen by the General Assembly. When the Assembly can’t agree – which often happens when control of the chambers is divided – either the governor or circuit judges make the nomination, depending on which court has a vacancy.
To replace this “dysfunctional” system, the Roanoke Times supports a “merit” selection scheme – where a small group, usually dominated by lawyers, meets in secret to pick judges. The Times bemoans the fact that judges today are “beholden to lawmakers for getting and keeping their jobs.” But isn’t it preferable – not to mention more democratic – for judges to be responsible to elected representatives chosen by the people, rather than having them be responsible to a completely unelected, unaccountable panel controlled by legal special interests?
In state after state that has experimented with secret/merit selection, the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions are determined by special interest groups such as the state trial lawyers association and the state bar association. Far from freeing judicial selection from “political influence,” these Star Chambers merely move politics behind closed doors, away from public oversight and scrutiny. Read more