Trust us lawyers to pick your judges!

This National Journal article hand wrings about campaign advocacy from certain sources. National Journal Online - Big Money Already Flowing Into Judicial Elections:

Close to four months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to roll back restrictions on corporate political spending, conservatives continue to downplay its significance.

Predictions that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling will unleash a torrent of corporate money are wildly overblown, free speech advocates insist. As evidence, they argue that corporate money has yet to flood elections in the 26 states that already impose no limit on corporate spending.

But a closer look at state-level elections suggests that independent political expenditures by corporations, unions and other special interests are substantial. This is particularly true in judicial elections, which have gotten dramatically costlier, nastier and more controversial over the past decade. The Citizens United ruling may impact judicial races even more drastically than federal elections, some experts argue.

Actually, a closer look merely demonstrates that "corporate" expenditures are only a smidgeon higher than expenditures from "lawyers and lobbyists" (ahhh, if only we all were able to, as individuals, give serious money to candidates we supported . . .). But the underlying message of the article (i.e., the message espoused by the experts selected by Eliza Newlin Carney to comment on the subject) is that electing judges is unwise because voters somehow don't appreciate Rule of Law. All the anti-judicial-election commenters imply that we need low-key campaigns for judges because voters cast ballots based on the political positions of judicial candidates. Actually, polling data reflect that voters care more about judicial activism than they do about a judge's position on particular issues.

Uh, what does Chief Justice Holder know about running for office?

Gender Campaign | The Fly-By | Memphis Flyer:

Last week, the [Memphis Area Women's Council] held its first Run Women Run event with Tennessee representative Karen Camper, Germantown mayor Sharon Goldsworthy, Tennessee Supreme Court chief justice Janice Holder, and attorney Ruby Wharton.

According to Deborah Clubb, executive director of the local women's council, Run Women Run was held to 'empower women with enough knowledge to know it's not impossible' to be elected to political office.

. . . .

During the non-partisan event, attendees heard advice on running for and serving in a political office. They discussed campaign strategies, financial tips, and the importance of honor and integrity in politics.

Wilder's legacy . . . aw gee

I was sad to learn of Lt. Gov. John Wilder's passing yesterday, and in various tributes to Lt. Gov. John Wilder ("Humphrey on the Hill" | knoxnews.com) it was interesting to note the several references to "the Tennessee Plan" for choosing appellate judges in our state. Tom Humphrey has assembled some charming eulogistic statements.

Roy Herron asserted in his tribute:

[Wilder] was deeply committed to the rule of law, bipartisanship, racial equality and fiscal conservatism. We will not see his likes again.

Sorry, I do not doubt that Wilder desired to serve what he perceived to be the best interest of Tennesseans, but the establishment of a process that ignored "judges shall be elected" was grossly inconsistent with "rule of law." In any event, RIP, Lt. Gov. Wilder.

Effecting checks and balances in NY State

I guess affecting Legislators' pocketbooks would be an effective means of checking/balancing by NY's third branch of government. ("Upstate New York Judge Censured in Bid to Get Pay Raise" - NYTimes.com)

Kelsey's controversialness

In a fundraising email this evening, the Tennessee Democratic Party goes after "the very right-wing and controversial politician Brian Kelsey" (that's right, very right-wing) because, among other things he

• supported politicizing the judicial selection process by electing judges to their positions, from the state supreme court down to the local judge. Many say that our current system of selecting judges by way of a judicial selection commission, which chooses the slate of candidates from which governors appoint new judges, is the most professional and least politicized process in the region.

Well, Kelsey is in good company on this point: a majority of Tennesseans agree that leaving the selection of judges to an unaccountable commission of special-interest lawyers was a bad idea.

Judges need to be anchored to SOMEthing

Yikes, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is keeping busy. This article ("Should Judicial Elections Be Abolished?" - Above the Law) reports some of her thinking on the election of judges. I can appreciate the arguments against electing judges, but it is interesting to hear how often opponents resort to anecdotal and literary examples in support of their policy preference*:

Justice O’Connor would like to see judicial elections ended, to protect the independence of the third branch of government. “We need to encourage judges and justices, when they speak in public arenas, to talk about these matters, and to keep reminding Americans about the importance of an independent judiciary,” said O’Connor.

She thinks that if Americans were better informed about the judiciary, the need to abolish elections would be self-evident. The states with judicial elections “allow campaign contributions to be made, and there can be vigorous and unfortunate campaigns. All of those states initially had appointed judges, and after Andrew Jackson became president, he had some very populist ideals, and he started persuading some of the states that they should elect judges, not appoint them. First state was Georgia. And they’re still doing that,” she said. “Look at the Caperton case. John Grisham’s novel on appeals might be based on it. It should be a source of real concern for Americans. If we have to resort to litigation, we want to feel issues will be decided fairly and impartially in court by a competent judge who is not subject to influence by campaign contributions and leanings towards one side or another.”

Some might argue that being involved in elections forces judges to be more transparent and to educate the public about what they do, but O’Connor disagrees with that notion. “If you have looked at some of the television ads in states that have judicial elections, I do not think you would be persuaded that it’s educational,” she said. “It’s not a very civilized or educational campaign."

*Incidentally, such a policy preference in Tennessee should be trumped by the plain text of our Constitution, but I digress . . .

1st mtg of Judicial Nominating Commission

Chattanooga Times Free Press | Judicial Nominating Commission to meet for first time: "The first meeting of the state's newly formed Judicial Nominating Commission is set for Sept. 23 in Nashville." From the article:

The process for selecting the state's appellate judges, dubbed the "Tennessee Plan," had come under fire again over the past year. During this year's General Assembly session, legislators had the option of abandoning the plan and reverting to what critics say the state constitution calls for: the popular election of such judges.

Instead, the Legislature voted to keep the plan but reinvent the way in which the nominating committee is selected. The new commission takes away mandated appointments to the commission by various legal and special-interest groups such as the state bar association.