As I read the recent Editorial (Choosing Judges Based on Merit Rather Than Hair Color: Progress, October 6, 2010) on the issue of whether to retain the election of Judges as required by our State Constitution or have them appointed, I had to remember our recent town board appointment fiasco. The County Commissioners’ position was that they want to appoint people they could work with (i.e. agree with them) and they don’t need the opinion of the voters of our valley.
Let us apply this same logic to the issue of whether to elect judges or have them appointed. Why did the framers of the state constitution provide for elected judges? It was to ensure that governor’s commissions and other political bodies could not appoint our judges.
Presently, every voter can vote on each district court and Supreme Court race. A voter may not be the most informed person, but he/she has the right to investigate the qualifications of the candidates. If we don’t become involved in elections, then committees appointed by some governing body will make that selection for us and we will lose another constitutional right.
I see the drive by the legislature to appoint judges as another example of perceived apathy on the part of the average citizen. Apparently, the legislature does not think we are willing to become informed before we cast our vote and has determined that we would rather have some commission make judicial selections and then recommend them to the governor.
The question then becomes how will the governor make his selection among the candidates proposed by the commission? Will it be by the candidate’s experience and ability in the law as well as the candidate’s “judicial temperament” or will it be decided because of a political connection, a friendship, ties to a powerful family, or the desire to have racial or ethnic diversity on the judicial bench ?
On Election Day I am going to vote NO on Question One and hope to retain the right to elect district court and supreme court justices.
Tony Terry
Attorney
