News & Updates

As the quality of judges and integrity of the judiciary continue to receive heightened attention, education and outreach has increasingly become the focus for the courts. Slowly joining the social media bandwagon, judicial performance evaluation (JPE) sites have been cropping up. What is emerging in the world of retention elections and JPE results?

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.

The Sedona Conference® has updated its Resources for the Judiciary, a reference manual for judges that is “intended to assemble and promote a variety of proven judicial management tools to help parties develop and execute appropriate, cost-effective, cooperative discovery plans; avoid unnecessary discovery disputes; and resolve discovery disputes that may arise in a fair and expeditious manner.”

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.

Recently, during the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, many state chief justices, court administrators, and legislators attended or participated in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Center for State Courts. At this discussion, panelists addressed how courts should best handle the severe judiciary budget cuts impacting the nation's courts, especially in light of the public's increasing demand for court services.

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.

In the final days of North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue's term, she will be filling the supreme court vacancy created by the unanticipated retirement of Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson. Given the short time frame in which the appointment must be made, the governor has decided to forego use of the judicial nominating commission and make a direct appointment. As a necessary step, she entered Executive Order 137, “temporarily modifying” the selection process for all vacancies that may arise before she leaves office. We understand the time constraints but lament her decision.

The campaign for a seat on Louisiana’s supreme court has taken a negative turn, with the Democratic candidate sponsoring an ad attacking Republican Jeff Hughes’ record as a trial court judge.

As IAALS Online has covered previously, Governor Brownback and conservative state legislators are expected to pursue changes to the process for choosing Kansas’ appellate judges in the upcoming legislative session. An unfavorable judicial decision in a school funding case could lend momentum to those efforts.

A contentious and likely expensive supreme court campaign is expected in April 2013, with Justice Patience Roggensack seeking reelection and at least three candidates expressing interest in challenging her. The outcome of the race has the potential to alter the ideological balance on the seven-mamber court, as Justice Roggensack is part of the court’s four-member conservative majority.

In a recent article, the Economist discusses how "money and back-room politicking are contaminating the selection of judges." The relative ease with which partisan groups can reach voters during a contested judicial election cycle has caused an ever-increasing flood of money to pour into judicial elections. As a result, a candidate's financial and political backing now outweighs their actual qualifications in determining who serves on the bench.

Judicial campaign spending amounts across the nation skyrocketed in the recent election cycle, threatening public perceptions of the independence, fairness, and impartiality of the courts. Driven by the desire to tilt the political balance on the court or to remove a judge from the bench because of unpopular rulings, political parties and outside groups spent vast amounts of unregulated money toward retaining or defeating a particular judge.

When they return in January, South Carolina legislators will elect judges for nine new circuit and family court judgeships, providing critics of this selection process with an opportunity to press their case. Their concerns center on the judicial merit selection commission, a ten-member body appointed by legislative leaders—and including six legislators—that screens and recommends judicial candidates.

According to a 1974 amendment to Arizona’s constitution, counties with a population of at least 250,000 must select their superior court judges via commission-based gubernatorial appointment—a.k.a. merit selection—rather than in contested elections. Pinal County exceeded that population threshold in the 2010 census, but the transition to merit selection has not been a smooth one.