The House Judiciary Civil Practice and Procedure subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) held a hearing yesterday, and one of the subjects was Judicial Selection. Here is video of the hearing. While I think that racial or gender "diversity" is much less important than a commitment to Rule of Law on an appellate court, it is worth considering whether Liberals' claim that commission-based selection (aka, "merit selection") of judges is necessary to serve any purported end of promoting diversity on the bench.
Rep. G.A. Hardaway (D-Memphis) speaking in support of his JudSel-related bill (HB0026) that would, in his mind, help to improve racial and gender diversity on Tennessee's appellate courts. Following Hardaway's remarks, Rep. Kent Coleman (D-Murfreesboro) patronizingly pointed out that the fact that there are three women on Tennessee's Supreme Court is "a sign of a system that has worked well" regarding diversity. Well, some quick Blackberry research turned up the fact that out of 20 state supreme courts with female Chief Justices, 9 of them were seated by commission-based selection (aka, "merit selection"), and 7 of them were seated via contested elections. Hardly evidence that we need commission-based selection to achieve gender diversity on our courts.
And regarding racial diversity, Coleman has an even weaker argument. There are no racial minorities on Tennessee's Supreme Court, and there are only two African-American judges (out of 24) on Tennessee's Intermediate Appellate Courts (here and here), and one of these African-American judges has only been on the bench since December of last year.
It needs to be noted that research about whether "merit selection" increases diversity on the bench is inconclusive (see here, here, here and here) and in Tennessee there is as much or more diversity in our trial courts, which are selected in contested elections, as there is on our appellate courts, which are selected by commissions.
Proponents of so-called "merit selection" claim a variety of advantages of their preferred method for picking judges. We know that "the Tennessee Plan" doesn't take (Lawyers') politics out of judicial selection. It also fails to deliver on increased racial "diversity."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Tennessee Plan, as it stands, shuts out "we the people". It lives contrary to The Tennessee Constitution. It conceals from democratic accountability. It trickles down to the lower courts. Judicial selection, even at the lower court level, has been adversely influenced by this flawed plan. These courts have become fraternities where influence is garnered questionably. The judicial system, as a whole, has become a shadowed corridor of compromise where "deals are cut" and favors are dealt out sacrificing, without conscience, the intent of "we the people".
ReplyDelete