Litigation

Merit Selection (II): Revisions Needed in AZ?

By Peter Hardin

Taking a cue from Election Day results in Nevada and Iowa, the author of an Arizona Republic commentary suggests making some changes to the way judges are selected in the Grand Canyon state.

Robert Robb suggests in the newspaper commentary that Arizona’s merit selection system has served the state well, but “a critical mass of the electorate regards the existing system as having insufficient political accountability.”

He also frets that unless changes are made to ensure greater accountability, Arizona could experience an election outcome like Iowa’s, where voters unseated three state Supreme Court justices. He suggests revisions to Arizona’s plan:

“Those who value an independent judiciary need to abandon their defense of the current merit-selection system as an immaculate conception.

“The right kind of indirect political accountability is to permit the governor to make appointments outside the recommended list, make appellate appointments subject to state Senate confirmation, and require reappointment after a reasonably long tenure, say eight years, rather than having vulnerable retention elections.”

In Arizona, screening commissions currently recommend appellate court nominees and nominees for Maricopa and Pima County trial courts. If the Arizona governor doesn’t pick from the nominees in 60 days, the state Supreme Court’s chief justice chooses the appointee, from the same list.

Retention elections are held for appellate judges and for trial judges in counties with populations of 250,000 or more. (These current selection procedures are described in detail at the American Judicature Society’s selection page for Arizona.)

In Nevada, voters rejected a ballot initiative to switch to a merit-based system for selecting state Supreme Court justices and district judges (see Gavel Grab). In Iowa, voters casting ballots in a retention election chose to remove three justices from the bench; the vote came in response to the state high court’s decision that permitted same-sex marriages (more in Gavel Grab).

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 17, 2010 (boomark / email).