Litigation

WI Editorial: Momentum Rising for Judicial Election Reform

By Peter Hardin

What is the value of a well-told story to drive home a point? It can have real impact, judging from the Wisconsin State Journal’s spotlighting an anecdote told by Justice John Paul Stevens for its editorial questioning judicial elections.

On a recent visit to Ohio, the retiring Supreme Court justice questioned the practice of states electing judges. He pointed to a case where he cast a vote as an appeals judge that might be found unpopular, but he was secure in the knowledge he had life tenure (see Gavel Grab).

The Wisconsin State Journal editorial noted that the decision came in a case involving a Milwaukee priest, Father James Groppi, and his brief takeover of the state Assembly chambers to rally against welfare cuts in 1969. A legislative contempt citation against Groppi, who was unpopular, was upheld by the elected state Supreme Court.

When Stevens considered Groppi’s appeal, he voted to toss out the conviction on grounds Groppi had not been accorded his due process rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court later vindicated that position, according to the editorial, entitled “Stevens offers stark example.”

The editorial also pointed to objections or concerns about state judicial elections raised earlier by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a champion of merit selection of judges, and by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It concluded:

“Momentum is growing for reform in which justices are selected for their experience and independence, not for their ability to raise money, court the special interests and charm voters.”

To learn more about appointment and retention systems for selecting judges, called merit selection, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic. To learn more about Justice O’Connor’s support for merit selection, click here for Gavel Grab posts, and to read about Justice Ginsburg’s views, click here for Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 26, 2010 (boomark / email).