Selection snapshots

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.

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.

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.

The D.C. Bar Judicial Evaluations Committee is beginning its annual survey of attorneys about judges sitting on the D.C. Court of Appeals and D.C. Superior Court. The results of the evaluations are given to the evaluated judge and the chief judge of his/her court.

In the wake of the November elections, the California Supreme Court adopted amendments to the code of judicial ethics that address judicial campaigns. The new rules require appellate judges, who stand for retention every twelve years, to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving parties who have made campaign contributions of at least $5000.

Judicial performance evaluation results published by the new Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) were not seen by many Utah citizens, the JPEC reports. For the first time, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office did not send the voter information pamphlet to all registered voters.