News & Updates

As state legislatures around the country kick off their 2013 sessions, lawmakers in at least four states—Kansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee—are poised to make changes to the process for selecting their states’ judges.

A new poll—this one commissioned by the Kansas Policy Institute—shows that Kansans see no need to change the process for selecting the state’s appellate judges. According to the recent poll, 54 percent of Kansans believe it is “in citizens’ best interests to have judges recommended for appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals by a majority-attorney panel,” while 39 percent disagree.

An informal Senate agreement on the rules of filibusters has the potential to accelerate confirmations of federal district court judges. The agreement reduces the amount of time required to overcome a filibuster and force a vote.

On the same day that jury selection began in the trial of a supreme court justice charged with illegal campaign practices, a Pennsylvania legislator introduced a measure that would end partisan elections for appellate judges.

This week the judiciary committee in both the house of representatives and the senate approved measures that would alter the process for choosing the state’s appellate judges. The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate the judicial nominating commission and require senate confirmation of appointments.

The Denver Post reports that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will hear Raymond Moore's nomination today for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The slow pace of the judicial nomination and confirmation process, normally bogged down by partisanship, may have relented for Moore, who will be considered in the first group of confirmation hearings.

In response to anticipated legislative proposals to alter the process for selecting the state’s appellate judges, with the most prominent being the discontinuance of the judicial nominating commission and the addition of senate confirmation, the Kansas Bar Association endorsed a plan to restructure the nominating commission.

With Justice Diane Hathaway resigning in the face of serious ethics charges, some are urging Governor Rick Snyder to follow a task force’s recommendations in appointing Hathaway’s successor on the Michigan Supreme Court.

In recent weeks, Governor Dannel P. Malloy has made significant strides toward diversifying the state supreme court, nominating the court’s first Hispanic justice and first openly gay justice.

In his first news conference, new Republican Governor Pat McCrory rescinded the executive order enacted by his predecessor, Democratic Governor Bev Perdue, creating a judicial nominating commission for filling midterm vacancies on the state’s courts.

In most states that elect their judges, vacancies that arise between elections are filled by gubernatorial appointment. Some governors opt to use an advisory panel in making these appointments, while others have opted not to seek the assistance of such committees.

Conservative lawmakers are expected to pursue a change in the process for selecting Kansas’ appellate judges in 2013. Critics of the current process believe that lawyers have too much control, with five of the nine members of the judicial nominating commission elected by the state bar association.

In mid-November, President Obama nominated Raymond P. Moore, a federal public defender, for a vacancy on the United States District Court of Colorado, which will open with the new year. Despite the fact that the process by which Moore was nominated mirrors versions used by twenty-one other states, there is concern that he may face a lengthy confirmation period, which has become a trend during Obama’s presidency.

Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk each authorize a nonpartisan screening committee to evaluate applicants for district court vacancies and make recommendations as to the best qualified. With four open seats in Illinois and only one nomination pending, Senator Kirk recently reactivated his 14-person committee.

According to results of a recent Vanderbilt University poll, 44 percent of Tennessee voters want to elect supreme court justices, while 28 percent believe the governor should continue to appoint them. The legislature is expected to pursue changes to the process for selecting judges in 2013.

According to a system established in 1977 by constitutional amendment, the governor appoints judges to the New York Court of Appeals—the state's highest court—from names submitted by the Commission on Judicial Nomination. The Commission recently began the process of filling the first of two vacancies on the high court by offering seven names for Governor Cuomo's consideration.

Rather than being elected by the voters, Delaware’s judges are appointed by the governor with senate confirmation. Since 1977, Delaware governors have entered an executive order creating a judicial nominating commission to screen applicants and recommend the best qualified candidates. In the wake of several recent judicial appointments, Governor Markell praised this selection process in an online video.

Governor Chris Christie submitted nominees for two New Jersey supreme court vacancies to the senate. One of the nominees is a sitting superior court judge and, if confirmed, would be the first Asian American justice on the court; the other nominee is the director of the board of public utilities.

During the week of December 3, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees for district court judgeships in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Michigan. This is unexpected progress in light of disagreement among Republican senators over whether to take any action in this arena during the lame-duck session.

Senate Republicans are questioning whether some recent court appointees changed their party affiliation so that they would be eligible for appointment, and they have proposed a constitutional amendment that would require judicial applicants to have held their party affiliation for at least two years.