Fairness In State Courts: Electing Versus Appointing State Judges
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-05/fairness-state-courts-electing-versus-appointing-state-judges
The process of selecting state judges varies from state to state. Some are elected, some are appointed, and in some states there are appointments that then go to voters for approval. The idea is to have state judges who represent the citizens of the state and not the political powers that be, but the process is inevitably political. Some argue that it is becoming yet another casualty of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Political donations, they say, are increasingly playing a role in the selection of state judges and weakening overall judicial impartiality. Please join us to discuss state judges and special interests.
Guests
Scott Gaylord
associate professor of law at Elon University School of Law.
Ian Millhiser
senior constitutional policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
Charlie Hall
editor of Justice at Stake.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am a graduate student in Government at the University of Texas at Austin, and I am writing my dissertation about the impact of state supreme court elections on judicial independence. My research suggests that the relevant distinction is not between elected and appointed judges, but the type of of election or reappointment. Judges who have to run in partisan elections have the least amount of job security, judges in nonpartisan elections a bit more, while judges in retention elections enjoy much higher levels of job security. As job security decreases, state supreme court justices 1) become much more attune to public opinion and 2) are much more polarized on partisan grounds.
You can read more about my research at my website: http://blogs.utexas.edu/wdb497/
I hope this is helpful.
Since 1974, Arizona has had a merit selection and retention system for its appellate courts and the superior courts in the two largest counties. This year, a third county passed the population threshold to enter the system, and we have about 90 judges and justices up for retention. Having been deeply involved with our courts as a non-attorney volunteer since 1988, I can't say enough good things about the quality of our judiciary. Because of Merit Selection, we have justices and judges who are very well-qualified, seek constructive criticism, and can spend their time doing what they are passionate about -- instead of raising money.
In 1988, our then-Chief Justice appointed a statewide commission to make recommendations for improvement into the new millennium. As a result, we now have -- among other things -- a Judicial Performance Review Commission to make recommendations to voters on judges' retention, a judicial quality-improvement program, and the Arizona Judicial Council, an advisory board for the Supreme Court. All have significant non-attorney representation. And, I can assure you, the judges and Justices not only listen to, but also sincerely care about what the public members have to say.
We have five Supreme Court justices. If we only had 5 neurosurgeons in Arizona and I needed a brain operation, I'd want the best qualified, not just a person with a MD who could raise $5 million.
According to Dr. Mark Stoler, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Vermont, the Founding Fathers never originally intended that political parties would be part of the governmental process.
The solution is simple, although it would be fought by these who specifically benefit by the current fraudulent system.
All political parties should be eliminated. Each candidate would run on their personal reputation.
Only one term would be permitted. The individual would then by returned to private life with one year's pay and benefit package. That individual would never be permitted to run for elective office again.
This law would apply to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
Would it totally solve the problems of our current corrupted and farcical system? Probably not totally, because there will still be those who will attempt to buy off the candidates. It will make "buying off" more expensive though, as it will have to be done far more often with different individuals.
The current system is obviously leading the nation to ruin. It's amazing that so many refuse to see this.
Could never understand the decision of the was that a state or federal court that turned down Valerie and Joe Wilson Plame's suit against Cheney and the Bush team that purposely outed Plame. I know the Supreme Court turned down the case but then a lower court also. Can you explain the reasons why they turned down this important case.
Judges from the U.S. Supreme Court to Ohio`s Supreme court,these seats are currently occupied by Corporate lobbyists in black robes. In a word,CROOKS. They take cash and gifts openly.They even go on 60 minutes saying,'what are you gonna do,in in for life'? Around the country the wealthy are even getting judges elected to get favorable rulings,like the mining tragedy in West Virginia.
THE BEST GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY, ONLY NOW IT`S CALLED FREE SPEECH !!!
Partisan politics in electing judges, partisan politics in appointing judges.
When I see judges on a ballot I smile, I know if I ever need go before a judge whichever judge gets the position I'm screwed.
Best bet is to find an attorney who's best buddies with the person deciding my fate.
removed
From my perspective, appointments tend to be very elitist endeavors. My father was elected as a judge in the lowest level of Ky. courts some years ago. He was the son of a janitor, went to state schools for his education, eventually becoming a lawyer. On his fifth try, he was finally elected as a District Court judge, and he served two terms (eight years) before losing his next election. During his time as judge, he enjoyed very high levels of approval from the local bar. However, in an appointment system, he would have never been considered because he didn't come from money, and did not go to the most prestigious schools.
At the same time, I live in WV, and am well aware of the corruption that money introduces to the system. What I would suggest is that entry-level judgeships should be elected, and appellate judges should be appointed. Had he lived long enough, I think, based on his performance, he could have been appointed to higher level courts. But without that initial elected position, he would never have gotten the chance to prove his merit. Also, having appointed appellate level judges provides some control on politically/monetarily motivated elected judges at lower levels.
Couldn't judges be selected by their professional organization or the ABA based upon credentials and professional assessments? Politics enters the equation whether they are appointed or elected. Money buys influence; there is no getting around it. Citizen's United is a case in point. If it Walmart and the Koch brothers were pouring dollars into a campaign in Africa, Afghanistan or Tunisia, Americans would be crying corruption! Why in the world are we accepting it in our own country? The founders would be turning in their graves...or hitching up the buggies to amend the constitution.
I find it disturbing that corporations can influence the selection of judges that may rule on cases that that affect the corporations.
The "CITIZENS UNITED" Supreme Court decision is based in a FLAWED interpretation that is NOT legal precedent. It was an interpretation of a comment made by Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite during the United States Supreme Court case in May of 1886, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. It wasn't even part of the decision. It was merely part of a quick summary of the case commentary by court reporter J. C. Bancroft Davis. Since J. C. Bancroft Davis was elected President of the Board of Directors of The Newburgh and New York Railroad Company in 1864, he had some reasons for wanting to influence law regarding corporations.
See http://www.truthout.org/unequal-protection-the-deciding-moment68397 for a more detailed account of this and source citations.
Corporations are NOT people and should not have the rights of unfettered speech.
Thank you! If dollars are words, then buying illegal drugs and child porn would merely be a conversation, and therefore, not illegal. The same goes for prostitution..."well judge, we were just exchanging a few 'words' about sex".
In Texas judicial review of elected judges is kept very secret and if that process had more transparency then perhaps that could alter the their behavior and biases.
TORT reform in Ohio created caps on the guilty offenders at $250K.No matter the cost to the injured. No consideration for inflation.Nothing,but the interests of the guilty.
Who does winds up paying the tab? You and I. The taxpayer.
Do you really care about debt and deficits?Or is it just more right wing hyperbole?
The problem with the idea of voting judges out of office are, as your guests have indicated, the voting public knows so little about the candidates and have a tendency to re-elect incumbents due to name recognition.
I had the misfortune of being dragged into an Ohio county civil court over relative visitation with my child after my husband died. The judge showed overwhelming partiality toward the petitioner with every comment he made, as well as in his written decision. I suspect he was influenced by AARP, as this powerful lobby group was a vocal and financial supporter and very influential in getting 3rd party visitation laws passed in just about every state. I of course can't prove it, but knowing all that I do about this very flawed law, I have no doubts that AARP money had everything to do with how my case was decided and how Ohio county judges decide these cases overall.
Since parent groups just don't have the money and influence of the AARP, there is no way we can out-influence the well-financed lobby machine of the AARP.
In Ohio, there is no way to know who is financing judges at the local level.
Companies as large as Walmart and people as rich as the Koch brothers may very well be pouring dollars into elections campaigns in places like Africa, Afghanistan or Tunisia, they are rich enough to hide it and how would we know?