What are the best criteria for the average voter in choosing judicial candidates? If your eyes start to roll back when looking at the myriad of strange names on the ballot running for an endless list of judgeships, you are probably not alone. You are also not alone if you have considered casting a vote based on the candidate with the best colored campaign signs or the one whose name sounds the most “judicial”. Face it! Unless you are an attorney working every day in the court system, or a regular troublemaker who spends a good deal of time in court, many of those judicial races are just a blindfolded dart-throw of a decision.
Of course, that is not to say that the decisions are unimportant. The winners of these elections will be resolving the most important legal matters of our lives including child custody cases, settlement of estates, business contract disputes, traffic offenses, drunk driving charges, criminal offenses, foreclosures and more.
Voters ought to be, and indeed want to be, informed in making these decisions. But with so many seats open and so many unknown candidates, how does an average person make an informed decision? A decision based on more than the candidate’s hair color, that is?
This year, Nevada voters will decide on a ballot initiative meant to, among other things, address this very problem. Question 1 would amend the Nevada Constitution to establish an appointment process for Nevada Supreme Court Justices and District Court Judges. The measure was passed by the legislature in 2007 and 2009 and is now going to the voters.
Under Question 1, candidates would have their qualifications screened by the Commission on Judicial Selection, a process already in use now to fill judicial vacancies. The commission, made up of a panel of 7-9 members including the Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court and equal numbers of attorneys and non-attorneys, would submit a list of finalists to the governor who would make the appointment.
After two years, judges would be subject to a public evaluation by a newly formed Commission on Judicial Performance. A summary of this Commission’s evaluation would be released six weeks before the general election. The names of all justices or judges seeking another term would appear on the ballot and voters would decide whether the judges should serve the following six year term or not. Each judge or justice would have to receive at least 55 percent of votes cast in order to be retained for another term.
Of course, the knee jerk reaction is to reject this amendment on the grounds that it takes power away from the people. The thought that a group of attorneys should be given free reign to choose from amongst their own number a short list of favored candidates that will then be forwarded to a partisan governor to make the final decision, rightfully has made voters feel a bit uneasy.
But a closer look at the amendment reveals the wisdom and significant benefits in the proposed arrangement.
For example under the current system, judicial candidates become politicians who must spend time seeking campaign contributions. These contributions are likely to come from the same law firms and interest groups that might appear before them in court. Imagine appearing in court before a judge to whom your opponent has made generous campaign contributions but to whom you have not. In the case of a fair and honest judge, this shouldn’t matter. Nevertheless, it still doesn’t look good.
But what about that nagging, uneasiness felt in giving the people’s vote over to a panel made up (at least partially) of lawyers? Well, the fact is, half of the time there isn’t much of a choice anyway. According to Nevada Secretary of State, almost 50 percent of judges run unopposed in the state. That means that all a candidate has to do is vote for himself to be elected. In those cases, the voters would have much more power in the proposed retention vote which would require the candidate to receive 55 percent of the vote to serve another term.
What about in the case of a contested election? In those instances, the best and most diligent of voters end up consulting the opinions of attorneys to guide their votes. One of the most commonly used tools for conscientious voters in judicial elections is the Las Vegas Review Journal feature called “Judging the Judges” (found this year at www.lvrj.com/hottopics/in_depth/judges/judgingthejudges2010.html.) which is merely a survey of Las Vegas attorneys rating the various judicial candidates. Many Moapa Valley voters rely on the opinions of local attorneys who are friends to tell them how to vote. That isn’t too much different than appointing a panel of experts to find qualified candidates.
So let’s get this straight. The proposed amendment would allow qualified judicial candidates to be chosen based on their experience and merit rather than the color of their campaign signs. It would take the cash out of the courtroom (or at least remove the appearance of any such impropriety). And we might even have fewer campaign signs posted along the highway at the head of the valley.
Well that makes a lot of sense to us. We would recommend a Yes vote on Question 1.
