Litigation

Post Editorial: ?End Judicial Elections Now?

By Peter Hardin

Voters saw TV ads costing millions of dollars, some of it ugly and false. And voters dumped three Iowa judges from the bench over a single unanimous and controversial ruling.

Election 2010 showed that these politicized elections  don’t work and should be ended, a Washington Post editorial said today in calling for a shift to a merit-based appointment system:

“Such elections are a deeply flawed means by which to choose judges and should be discarded.”

An editorial in USA Today, another national newspaper, decried the ouster of the three Iowa justices over the court’s ruling that permitted same-sex marriage, saying the ousters  “sent a chill through courts across the country.” National groups pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into an organized campaign to kick the justices from the bench in a retention election.

The Post editorial was entitled “Firing judges.” It took special aim at attack advertising in expensive  and nasty retention (up-or-down) elections in Iowa and Illinois. The editorial said:

“[T]he attacks occurred in uncontested retention elections, which were intended to insulate jurists from the most distasteful elements of a political campaign. If they ever succeeded in that goal, they no longer do.”

The editorial attributed to Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice, a partner group, the fact that voters went to the polls in some kind of judicial elections in 33 states this week.

The Post  went on to find preferable a merit system to “better shield judges from the most corrosive aspects of political elections.” It proposed appointment by the governor, confirmation by a legislature and judicial terms of 10 to 15 years, with removal permitted in case of infirmity or failure to perform official duties.

Judges “should not be swayed by the political whims of the day, nor should they be made to think twice about making principled but controversial decisions for fear that they could lose their jobs,” the editorial concluded.

According to the USA Today editorial, focusing on Iowa, “It would be hard to overstate the importance of the principle of judicial independence.” The editorial continued:

“Yet some conservative groups seem bent on trying to punish judges whom they deem to be ‘activist,’ which appears to mean nothing other than that they disagree with the groups’ point of view. Beyond Iowa, this fall the groups targeted Kansas high court judges for rulings on abortion clinics and Colorado justices on tax issues. While those justices survived, the Iowa ousters sent a chill through courts across the country.

“Constitutions exist to ensure consistency and equal treatment under the law. When they have no meaning, there can be no trust in the rule of law, which is why judges are bound to heed them.

“At his confirmation hearing, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts famously compared the role of a judge to that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. Imagine what would happen to the integrity of baseball if umpires were hounded from the field for making calls the home crowd didn’t like.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 05, 2010 (boomark / email).