Tennessee Bar Fight. Kentucky Could Use One.
Tennessee Bar Fight
Busting the monopoly on judicial selection.
Tennessee is moving the dial on how it chooses judges, changing parts of the so-called merit selection method that has governed the state for decades. Under a new plan approved by the legislature on Friday, the lawyers who have dominated judicial selection are getting put back in their place.
The extraordinary influence of the bar is a hallmark of the judicial selection method used by more than two dozen states. Sometimes called the Missouri Plan for its state of origin, a slate of potential nominees is chosen by a judicial nominating commission and presented to the Governor for a pick. Designed to reduce the pull of politics on judges, the plan instead gave power to lawyers who sat on the commissions and pushed state courts to the left.
Under Tennessee's old version of this plan, commissioners were chosen from lists submitted by various legal special interests including the Tennessee trial lawyers association, the district attorneys general conference and the Tennessee bar association. Under the new system, all 17 members of the Judicial Selection Commission would be picked directly by elected officials, rather than by the lawyers groups. The change should reduce the power of a professional guild to control state jurisprudence and reintroduce accountability through elected officials.
Tennessee is the latest state to push back against this insider "merit" selection amid widespread dissatisfaction. In 2006, Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen grew so frustrated with the subpar slates of nominees that he sued the judicial nominating commission for the right to consider others -- and won. The system was put on the path to extinction last year as lawmakers declined to renew it.
Tennessee would thus have automatically reverted at the end of June to the judicial elections required under its Constitution. The new plan buys the state two years to consider other alternatives. One good idea lawmakers should revisit would allow the governor to reject two slates of nominees and then choose a nominee from among anyone who applied for the position. Though likely a rare occurrence, the possibility of being rendered irrelevant would have a bracing effect on the nominators.
That improvement was excised from the state Senate's version of the bill, but Tennesseans are bound to hear more about it. Lieutenant Governor and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey is one of several Republicans running for Governor in 2010, and voters should ask why he didn't push harder for broader choices of nominees. In its best incarnation, a judicial commission is designed to serve a useful editing function, providing a short list of desirable candidates for the Governor, similar to the way staffers might under a federal system. When it's dysfunctional, the Governor should be allowed to take the reins.
The Tennessee plan that was supposed to prevent the tawdry appearance of litigants and special interests involved in electing judges instead ended up with them selecting the judges behind closed doors. The state's reforms will open the commission's meetings to the public and are a good first step toward bringing transparency and accountability to those judging the judges.
Busting the monopoly on judicial selection.
Tennessee is moving the dial on how it chooses judges, changing parts of the so-called merit selection method that has governed the state for decades. Under a new plan approved by the legislature on Friday, the lawyers who have dominated judicial selection are getting put back in their place.
The extraordinary influence of the bar is a hallmark of the judicial selection method used by more than two dozen states. Sometimes called the Missouri Plan for its state of origin, a slate of potential nominees is chosen by a judicial nominating commission and presented to the Governor for a pick. Designed to reduce the pull of politics on judges, the plan instead gave power to lawyers who sat on the commissions and pushed state courts to the left.
Under Tennessee's old version of this plan, commissioners were chosen from lists submitted by various legal special interests including the Tennessee trial lawyers association, the district attorneys general conference and the Tennessee bar association. Under the new system, all 17 members of the Judicial Selection Commission would be picked directly by elected officials, rather than by the lawyers groups. The change should reduce the power of a professional guild to control state jurisprudence and reintroduce accountability through elected officials.
Tennessee is the latest state to push back against this insider "merit" selection amid widespread dissatisfaction. In 2006, Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen grew so frustrated with the subpar slates of nominees that he sued the judicial nominating commission for the right to consider others -- and won. The system was put on the path to extinction last year as lawmakers declined to renew it.
Tennessee would thus have automatically reverted at the end of June to the judicial elections required under its Constitution. The new plan buys the state two years to consider other alternatives. One good idea lawmakers should revisit would allow the governor to reject two slates of nominees and then choose a nominee from among anyone who applied for the position. Though likely a rare occurrence, the possibility of being rendered irrelevant would have a bracing effect on the nominators.
That improvement was excised from the state Senate's version of the bill, but Tennesseans are bound to hear more about it. Lieutenant Governor and Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey is one of several Republicans running for Governor in 2010, and voters should ask why he didn't push harder for broader choices of nominees. In its best incarnation, a judicial commission is designed to serve a useful editing function, providing a short list of desirable candidates for the Governor, similar to the way staffers might under a federal system. When it's dysfunctional, the Governor should be allowed to take the reins.
The Tennessee plan that was supposed to prevent the tawdry appearance of litigants and special interests involved in electing judges instead ended up with them selecting the judges behind closed doors. The state's reforms will open the commission's meetings to the public and are a good first step toward bringing transparency and accountability to those judging the judges.
Labels: Judicial integrity, Justice, Keeping them honest
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home