Ramsey proposal moving thru senate

Andy Sher is reporting Bill changing Supreme Court selections approved by senate committee. From the article:

The bill does away with the existing system of Supreme Court justice selection and election in which would-be candidates are screened by the Judicial Selection Commission and the names of three candidates are forwarded to the governor, who appoints one. Voters later vote “yes” or “no” in the next statewide election on whether to retain the justices.

The bill eliminates the 17-member Judicial Selection Commission. Critics, including Sen. Dewayne Bunch, R-Cleveland, have attacked the panel and the entire retention election system, known as the Tennessee Plan, as being unconstitutional, although it has been upheld twice by two specially appointed state Supreme Courts.

Under an amendment offered by Sen. Bunch, governors could appoint anyone they wish to vacancies. Supreme Court justices would have regular elections in 2014 while presumably, a proposed constitutional amendment enshrining the Tennessee Plan would go before voters.

"Special" v. "Controlling" Interest

Ken Marrero, the Blue Collar Muse, has a splendid essay up today ("Special Interests in the Judicial Selection Process") pointing out the foolishness of claiming that commission-based selection of judges (e.g., "The Tennessee Plan") removes special interests from the process of picking judges. Ken writes:

We don’t need Commissions telling us which candidates are the best. The candidates themselves can do that. We don’t need Commissions deciding which judges should be considered for a vote. The candidates can do that, too. We don’t need Commissions dominated by Special Interests to make choices for us. Let’s get rid of The Tennessee Plan. We know our own interests far better than they do and we can be moved by our own Special Interests when we make our own choices - on election day.

Don't beat yourself up, Gov. Bredesen

It appears ("Bredesen regrets letting judicial genie out") that Governor Bredesen is blaming himself for "opening a pandora's box" regarding the decades-old system of picking judges via secret, unaccountable lawyers' commissions. From the article:

With state lawmakers debating what to do with the Judicial Selection Commission, which is currently in wind down mode, Gov. Phil Bredesen said this morning that he regrets criticizing the commission in 2006 for not doing enough to promote diversity.

Bredesen correctly points out that the system does not fulfill its stated objective of diversifying the bench, but for some reason, that failure doesn't keep most diversity-focused politicians from supporting it. So, no harm done, Mr. Governor. As far as I know, nobody who supported commission-based selection of Supreme Court Judges has changed their opinion based on your criticism in 2006.

So, don't beat yourself up. Your kerfuffle isn't what is driving an overwhelming majority of Tennesseans to demand that the judicial commissions go bye-bye.

TFP: "Tennessee Plan takes politics out of politics!"

I missed last week's Times Free Press editorial, and I bet you did as well. Which is a shame since the op/ed declares that commission-based selection of judges manages to remove politics out of the process of selecting judges! From the article ("A threat to courts’ integrity"):

Tennessee’s system of selecting appellate and Supreme Court judges has for years provided an exemplary service to Tennesseans. While voters ultimately elect the judges, they do so under a selection process that preserves judicial independence and integrity by eliminating the traditional corrupting pitfalls of campaign contributions, partisan and ideological agendas, and the power of lobbyists and wealthy special interests.

While it's debatable that "the Tennessee Plan" has served Tennesseans in an "exemplary" way, even the system's staunchest supporters admit that politics are part of the process, while asserting that pushing the politics to unaccountable commissions meeting in secret somehow improves the process.

Regardless, there's no question that the system has played handmaiden to the Lawyers' Lobby in Tennessee. Power to the Lawyers!!

A reader asks: What's the Lawyers' Lobby?

A reader of the blog asks:"What is the 'lawyers lobby' and what do they want?"

Well, dear fan of Judicial Reform Coalition blog, good question. "Lawyers' Lobby" is not a commonly-used phrase, but the best definition is probably found here under "Makeup of the Judicial Selection Commission."

And what do they want? They want to have the greatest control over who can be a judge . . . it should come as no surprise that folks who view courts as super-legislatures are keen to the importance of picking who the judges are.

Likely GOP Primary voter Oatney questions Ramsey

David Oatney comments on Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey's recent statements about judicial elections in Tennessee: (The World According to Oatney: "Things Are Different, Let's Just Appoint Everybody!"):

Ron Ramsey is a fine human being with so many good ideas for making Tennessee a better place. If he keeps up at his current pace, however, he may not even make it to the August 2008 Republican Primary, let alone actually win it. . . . Now, he says he doesn't want to elect judges in this State, a promise which he has not only broken to the voters, but a stance which can be seen to violate his very oath of office.

One thing that is important for David to know is that Ramsey's purported proposal (I haven't had the privilege of seeing a copy of it yet) would include reviving a previous statute that allows for the governor to make interim appointments to the courts. So, it would be constitutional until at least the next biennial election. At that time, according to those who speculate that the sky will fall if the judicial commissions sunset, the interim judges would simply face retention referenda to keep their seats. But, as reflected in the assertions of one commenter, Ramsey's plan is getting a cool reception from interest groups vehemently opposed to judicial elections: the Lawyer's Lobby.

First, the anonymous commenter claims that the Constitution only addresses the selection of the Supreme Court and also warns of how corrupt it is to elect judges.

Regarding which judges must be elected, one section of the Constitution addresses the "Supreme Court" and the next section addresses "Inferior Courts" . . . and they all are to be "elected." And, as David points out the same term is used for the governor and members of the legislature. Surely you can't "interpret" the word "election" to mean anything other than "contested election" when applied to legislators?

Regarding corruption and judicial elections, I'm eager to hear "anonymous" explain how having an unaccountable, secret commission appoint judges is less susceptible to corruption and abuse than is letting people pick the candidates. Rule of Lawyers. That sounds like a swell idea . . .

Black-robed lobbyists

Tennessee Media Maven Terry Frank is shining the light on judges-campaigning-against-the-evils-of-judges-campaigning.

Terry has been busy. terryfrank.net » ("Judges Aren’t Political, Right? Right, Unless You Were Just Lobbied By One")

Incidentally, here's an example of a "personal" lobbying letter--in favor of commission-based selection of judges, sent from one of Tennessee's sitting Supreme Court Justices to Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.