Litigation

AZ Merit Selection Chronicled, Debated

By Peter Hardin

With proposals to modify Arizona’s judicial system before the state legislature, the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University has published a background paper about the merit system for choosing judges in that state.

The paper is entitled “Abandoning Judicial Merit Selection: ‘A Giant Step Backwards?’” The title draws on a quote by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of Arizona, who has labeled the idea of abandoning the merit approach “a giant step backwards.”

The paper focuses on the history of Arizona’s judicial selection system, how it works, and the pros and cons of merit selection and the “battle” over choosing judges by merit both in Arizona and elsewhere.

While the paper looks at both sides of the debate over merit selection, it states the following in closing:

“Debate over which is the best system reflects philosophical or ideological divisions and different ideas about the role of the judiciary. Still, if the goal is a system that attempts to balance legal expertise and accountability to the voters, the merit system stands out.”

Among pending bills in Arizona are proposals to eliminate a list of candidates furnished by a screening commission and let the governor pick anyone he chooses for a judgeship; change the composition of the commission and make appointments subject to Senate confirmation; require that all applicants’ names be given to the governor, ranked by the commission for merit; and give all authority over retention of judges to the state Senate.

Other bills would increase the number of state Supreme Court justices from five to seven and would restrict that court’s authority.

Currently,  local judges in Arizona’s smaller counties are elected.  Judges in larger, more urban counties are appointed.

A recent Today’s News-Herald article reported on a pending bill to have the governor nominate judges and the state Senate confirm them.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 18, 2011 (boomark / email).