Miscellaneous

Judicial Selection Town Hall Meeting: The Wrap-Up

By Anne Skove, Esq.

A small group discussion with fearless facilitator Darrell Miller from UC Law, involved the question of what makes a good judge. Goodness, according to our members, encompassed knowledge, experience, morals, impartiality, apolitical-ness, and following the law.

We then reconvened to consider solutions. Here are a few:

• Judicial selection by "blue-ribbon" panel


• Voter education (indeed, this was the one solution that everyone in the room felt strongly about, though this being a League of Women Voters event, we were preaching to the choir)


• Disclosure -- enough to let people (and organizations, we suppose) follow the money


• Public financing of elections (as North Carolina does)


• Have opponents nominate each other! This was a creative idea that could either be wonderful or disasterous.


• Require those who want to be candidates participate in a mock jury trial, open to the public. Another creative idea whose time may not have come, but something to think about!

Do not discount imagination when wrestling with these difficult problems!

More ideas, mostly from our own head but inspired by conversations in the room:

• Rely on and enforce existing ethics rules. This is a conservative approach but simple to implement.


• Rein in groups such as the Chamber of Commerce (your tax dollars at work!) who spend millions trying to knock judges off the bench. Brilliant article suggested by one participant (how scary that the most radical person in the room is a retired former Jesuit?): The Making of the Corporate Judiciary, Michael Scherer, Mother Jones (November/December 2003)


• Promote North Carolina-style public funding compromises. The Fourth Circuit recently upheld North Carolina's new system.

Final thoughts, ala Jerry Springer: everybody has an opinion about judicial selection. At the National Center for State Courts, where court-o-rama founders worked for at least a decade each, the party line was "make the best of whatever system you have." This was so because culture is hard to change, and because any type of system can be implemented correctly or be a total disaster. I still believe in this approach.

Another reason to maintain the cleanest possible version of the status quo: think of the reaction if the citizenry is told their vote is being taken away! Public trust and confidence in the courts is bad enough without giving the appearance of disenfranchising people. Even if they never voted, even if they don't have a clue, it's the principle of the thing.

This entire approach begs the question: what IS the system of judicial selection in any given jurisdiction? Much of the criticism surrounds de facto selection systems. Ohio says these elections are nonpartisan -- let's make it so. We say there are no appointments -- let's re-examine the nomination process to ensure there are no back-room shenanigans. There are a number of holes in any type of system -- let's plug them.

Here are links to the entire series (in chronological order) on these pages:

• With Bells On: Judicial Independence Forum (May 13, 2008)


• You Can Pick Your Friends: Judicial Selection in Ohio (May 15, 2008)


• The History of Everything! Judicial Selection in Ohio (May 16, 2008)


• Judicial Selection in Ohio: Common Cause's Cause (May 18, 2008)

Judicial Selection in Ohio: More Fun Than American Idol! (May 21, 2008)

The American Judicature Society (which favors merit selection) has a handy state-by-state guide to judicial selection. This is an invaluable resource for voters.

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on May 22, 2008 (boomark / email).