Arizona’s house of representatives passed a bill that would increase from three to five the minimum number of candidates a nominating commission sends to the governor for each judicial vacancy. The constitution calls for the commission to submit at least three nominees to the governor.
Responding to a 6-3 supreme court decision that invalidated a legislative initiative requiring a two-thirds vote for tax increases, three Republican senators proposed a bill that would eliminate four justices from the nine-member court, citing the resulting salary savings.
President Obama appears to be making diversity a priority in his judicial appointments. Of the 35 federal judicial nominees awaiting a Senate confirmation vote, 17 are women, 15 are ethnic minorities, and five are openly gay. Of the judges who were confirmed during Obama’s first term, 37 percent were non-white and 42 percent were women. These figures are notably higher than those of his predecessors.
Oklahoma has joined several other states—including Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee—whose legislatures are considering changes to the process for selecting judges.
As it did in 2012, Florida’s house of representatives has proposed giving the governor greater authority over the membership of the state’s judicial nominating commissions. Of the nine members, four are appointed from recommendations by the state bar. The proposed measure stipulates that the other five members would serve at the governor’s pleasure.
Justice Pat Roggensack and Marquette University law professor Ed Fallone were the top two vote-getters in the February 19 primary election for a seat on Wisconsin’s supreme court, and they will compete in the April 2 general election.
Legislators in Illinois have filed three measures that would enhance judicial qualifications and alter the judicial selection and retention process. Among the proposed reforms—which would require amending the constitution—are a commission-based gubernatorial appointment process for filling judicial vacancies and a judicial retention commission to consider the qualifications of judges seeking retention.
Tennessee’s senate approved by a 29-2 vote a proposed constitutional amendment that has been nicknamed “The Founding Fathers Plan Plus.” The proposal would establish a federal selection process for appellate judges—gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by both houses of the legislature (the “plus”).
The Quality Judges Initiative is pleased to announce the addition of two new members to the ranks of the O’Connor Advisory Committee—Professor Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte and Professor Keith Swisher. We are thrilled that Sandy and Keith will be contributing their expertise and experience and we look forward to working with them as we pursue the mission of the Initiative.
Federal public defender Ray Moore was one of 11 nominees voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 14. If the timetable proceeds as it has with other nominees, the full Senate would vote on Moore’s nomination in April or May, though an informal Senate agreement regarding the time allowed for filibustering may speed up the overall confirmation process.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Commission has posted the first of its endorsements of judicial candidates, in preparation for the May 21 primary election. The Bar’s review process consists of a questionnaire on the candidate’s legal background, an investigation by a three-member panel, and an interview with the full commission, after which the candidate is notified of the Bar’s decision.
A senate panel approved a bill that would expand the state’s seven-member judicial nominating commission, adding two commissioners who would be appointed by the leaders of each chamber. Currently, the judicial conference appoints two trial court judges, the state bar president appoints three lawyers, and the governor appoints two non-lawyers to serve on the commission.
Only three of twelve Republicans on the senate judiciary committee voted with their Democratic colleagues to advance New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent nominee to the state court of appeals, but they did so "without recommendation." Some critics of CUNY law professor Jenny Rivera question the breadth of her legal experience.
Two Republican lawmakers proposed a bill that would make judicial elections partisan again. Democrats led the charge to make them nonpartisan a decade ago, but at least in the 2012 appellate court elections, the party affiliation of the candidates was clear.
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.
