Litigation

Merit System Yields ?Fewer Turkeys, Fewer Crooks?

By Peter Hardin

A Nevada newspaper columnist says she has done her homework. But her toughest votes in Tuesday’s upcoming primary will be cast in the judicial races, and about some of them, she is candidly “clueless.”

There’s little way to know much about contenders in some of the open seats, Jane Ann Morrison confides in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So she asked an attorney friend, and he didn’t know about them. But he did give some advice that the author likes, in support of a merit selection system for appointing judges:

“While it’s not perfect and both systems have flaws, he said with merit selection ‘there are fewer turkeys and fewer crooks on the bench.’

“Oh, there are still turkeys and crooks who make it under merit selection, but their numbers are smaller. That’s progress.”

In Nevada, voters will consider in November whether to scrap elections of Supreme Court justices and District Court judges when a vacancy occurs, and replace elections with what is widely called the Missouri Plan, a system of appointments and retention (up-or-down) elections (see Gavel Grab).

Morrison writes that she observed closely the merit selection process used to pick two Las Vegas justices of the piece. She was impressed by what she saw:

“I am much more confident in the weeding out process by a committee of lawyers, judges and lay people. Those candidates went through vigorous and intense scrutiny, much more so than voters give them.”

She also has a gift for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a champion for merit selection of judges. Although the slogan “Fewer turkeys and fewer crooks on the bench” probably doesn’t meet Justice O’Connor’s standards for dignity, Morrison notes, “If she wants it, it’s hers.”

To learn more about judicial appointment and retention systems, visit Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 07, 2010 (boomark / email).