Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is spearheading a new initiative to jettison judicial elections in favor or judicial appointment.
The Associated Press features comments on the effort from the Center for Competitive Politics:
“It has sort of an elitist tinge to say that voters aren’t sophisticated enough to make this determination,” said Jeff Patch, a spokesman for the Alexandria, Va.-based Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes campaign finance limits.
Patch said voters don’t buy the argument that appointed judges, even those who face retention elections and performance reviews, are somehow insulated from accusations of bias. He pointed out the possibility of a governor appointing a donor to the bench, or a commission choosing a popular lawyer.
“To say that merit selection is going to be more ethical is pretty misguided,” he said.
To be clear, the Center for Competitive Politics does not endorse “merit selection” over judicial campaigns – partisan or otherwise. What we do criticize, however, is that judicial campaigns are somehow inherently corrupt or that merit selection offers a process insulated from the sort of quid pro quo allegations that “reform” groups always lob at judges who accept campaign contributions.
The point about voters is observational: it’s a tough sell to ask voters to give up their right to elect judges, and no electorate has adopted “merit selection” in over 20 years.
Legal Times has more on O’Connor’s effort through the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
