Litigation

Defenders of Merit Selection Speak Out

By Peter Hardin

With merit selection of judges under attack in numerous states, its defenders are speaking up.

In the Nashville Tennessean, lawyer Zan Blue, who is on the board of directors for the Tennessee Business Roundtable, writes that merit selection is effective in keeping courts fair and impartial. Merit selection keeps the judiciary free of partisan politicking and special-interest spending, he adds:

“Ordinary folks want judges to make decisions on the law and the facts. Businesspeople want decisions based on merit and ability. No one should want judges to decide cases based on whom they like or who gave money for their election campaign.”

Glenn Braun, president of the Kansas Bar Association, advocates for merit selection in a KSAL News commentary:

“Our system provides for a fair and impartial judiciary. Our system produces highly qualified judges and justices. Our system works efficiently and effectively. To put it plainly our system works. Let’s keep it that way.”

In the Arizona Republic, David Daugherty of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy discusses a recent roundtable discussion on legislative proposals to change the way judges are selected in Arizona. The panelists included Ruth V. McGregor, former chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court; and  Mary M. Schroeder, a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Voters should take note because they’ll ultimately be the ones in the jury box deciding how this political trial turns out,” Daugherty notes. A video of the roundtable discussion is available by clicking here, and a recent merit selection report by the Institute is available here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 28, 2011 (boomark / email).