Litigation

Justice Steven Questions Choosing Judges by Election

By Peter Hardin

Add retiring Justice John Paul Stevens to the growing list of current and former justices who have publicly questioned the practice of electing judges.

Justice Stevens on Wednesday “suggested that the federal system of appointed judges who hold life tenure promoted judicial independence better than popular election of judges,” the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog reported.

When he sat on a federal appeals court in the 1970s, he cast his vote to toss out a conviction that an elected state supreme court had upheld, Justice Stevens said.

?I remember thinking, ?I have life tenure,?? Justice Stevens said, and if he voted in an unpopular way, there would be no punishment. He had thought “a great deal” about the case, Justice Stevens added, as it showed a contrast between the perspectives of elected and life-tenured judges in viewing some issues.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has traveled the nation championing an end to state judicial elections (see Gavel Grab) and their replacement by merit selection, in order to insure an independent judiciary. In March, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believed states should end the practice of electing judges (as Gavel Grab reported here).

Justice Stevens discussed his thinking in Columbus, Ohio, where he was present for a conference of  lawyers and judges in the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

An article in USA Today discussed Justice Stevens’ changed view on the constitutionality of capital punishment. His disagreement with the practice of senators trying to pin down a nominee’s legal views was the topic of an Associated Press story.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 06, 2010 (boomark / email).