Litigation

Editorial: Elected Judges ?Under a Shadow?

By Peter Hardin

Count a resounding vote for up-or-down retention elections, and against “a party-political circus,” from a blunt-speaking editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

The editorial points out that after their initial appointment by the governor, state judges must run in a partisan contest:

“They had to pass a merit-selection board before the governor appointed them ? but now they’re sitting ducks for political opportunists who might or might not have qualified for merit selection.”

The editorial maintains that there are important reasons to replace the contested elections with retention votes:

“The judiciary, already held to canons of ethics as lawyers, hew to a higher standard ? yet can come under a shadow when judges must raise campaign contributions and round up party support to fend off electoral opposition. And pity the poor merit appointee who dares to hold himself or herself above politics while challengers cut backroom deals. Who’s got the better chance in the primary ? where, in Democrat-heavy New Mexico, the contest is usually decided?”

New Mexico (state capitol in photo above) uses a hybrid system of judicial selection. The governor makes an appointment to fill a vacancy; the judge runs in a partisan contest at the next general election to fill the seat for the remainder of the term; and if successful, runs in retention elections after that, according to the American Judicature Society. You can learn about appointment and retention systems from the Justice at Stake issues page about them.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 16, 2010 (boomark / email).