Sandra Day O'Connor wants to drop elections for judges and replace them with merit selection

[alp227]

Effort Begun to End Voting for Judges
by John Schwartz
The New York Times
December 23, 2009

A group of judges, political officials and lawyers, led by the retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has begun a campaign to persuade states to choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election.

As a state legislator in the 1970s, Justice O’Connor helped Arizona create a merit selection system for judges. She is now chairwoman of the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, announced this month by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, to help make judges more than “politicians in robes,” as she has put it.

The group plans a new push to fight judicial corruption, and the perception of corruption that campaign money can cause, by encouraging state initiatives to scrap direct judicial elections. The work will include traveling from state to state, by invitation, to work with lawmakers, policy makers and advocates to build support for selection systems through public education, legislative counsel and political campaigns.

Rebecca Love Kourlis, the founder of the institute, acknowledged that getting voters to give up the right of direct election was “a hard sell,” but she argued, “You’re going to get a better caliber of judge over all.”

[valerief]

1. Oh, yes. A merit system can't possibly get corrupted.

:sarcasm:

[Blasphemer]

2. Yeah, I was just going to ask "who would be doing the selecting?" nt

[alp227]

3. Another question: Define "merit".

on DU I've seen plenty of bawling over Education Sec. Arne Duncan's proposal to tie teacher pay to test scores. It's pretty hard to define what merit is isn't it? For judges, it might seem a bit subjective, as the law sometimes isn't very interpretable easily.

[Ikonoklast]

4. Butt out, Sandy.

You retired, now stay that way.

Let's just have all politicians and judges 'appointed' on 'merit'.

That would work oh, so well.

Let the laws of the land deal with corrupt judges.

[spindrifter]

5. I prefer our system--elected

judges with vacancies between elections filled by appointment. It is amazing to see the difference. Obviously, the appointees tend to be tight with the appointing governor's party. The judges who come in via election tend to be a varied lot. But all of them really want to be judges. The combination is good for the system.

[RDANGELO]

6. I agree that judges should not be elected.

A judges decision should be based on an honest interpretation of the laws and the constitution not what will get them elected. Public opinion should come into play when laws are made, not when being interpreted.

[AllentownJake]

7. I prefer a system where a list of approved people is compiled

through a bi-partisan commission and than letting the executive of the area make the appointment.

[SharonAnn]

8. Yes, that's the way it is in TN. With the option that voters can vote "No" on retention after term

This has worked fairly well. Except when the GOP sent up 3 right-wingers as recommended (there are only 3 slots). The Dem Governor (Bredesen) refused all of them and asked for another list. He got it.

So, now that we have GOP House and GOP Senate in TN, they're trying to change it to elections.

Sheesh.

[LiberalFighter]

9. I would consider that to be a major flaw.

If Governor is provided a list and it only contains nutcases. Thankfully, the Governor was able to refuse the first list and get a better list.

I wonder if there was any type of rating system by a neutral party and if that would help make the system better?

[jobycom]

13. That sounds like a good system.

Satisfies the elements of a Republic by letting an elected official make the choice, but comes closer to ensuring a qualified choice than a popular election would.

[Odin2005]

10. Judges should NEVER be elected.

Electing judges results is decisions based on what is popular (like unnecessarily harsh sentences) and not what is right and just.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree completely.

Handing down sentences shouldn't be a campaign tool.

[jobycom]

12. I agree with O'Connor on that.

Any system is going to favor power and money and political connections, but popularized judicial systems are too arbitrary. Here in Texas judges get elected by talking toughest about the death penalty and immigrants, and too many make decisions based more on what will look good to voters than on the judicial merits of a case. I don't even think DAs should be elected, for much the same reason.