Selection Snapshots

Over the summer, the Tennessee legislature declined to renew the state's judicial nominating commission, which was used to recommend well-qualified candidates for appellate judgeships to the governor. Instead, lawmakers chose to let Tennesseans weigh in on the issue in 2014. The judicial selection process appeared to be in limbo in the interim, but Republican Governor Bill Haslam has acted to fill the gap, creating a screening panel by executive order.

As Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts celebrates its 25th year, supporters of moving from partisan elections to commission-based appointment of the state's appellate judges are optimistic that the time is finally right. That optimism stems largely from two recent scandals that have plagued the state supreme court. The reform legislation also enjoys support on both sides of the aisle.

Thanks to a working group of judges and lawyers, California's Administrative Office of the Courts now offers a required course on judicial ethics for incumbent judges and attorney challengers running for judicial office. Judicial candidates must complete the course within 60 days of filing for office, creating a campaign committee, or receiving a campaign contribution.

Recent efforts to alter the process for selecting Kansas' appellate judges have been covered frequently of late. Supporters of increased funding for public schools are concerned about the impact this effort may have on a school finance case that is currently before the supreme court. Specifically, they worry that Governor Brownback and conservative legislators may be pushing selection changes to "put the court on notice."

At a recent public forum, Ohio's three newest supreme court justices discussed the threat posed to state courts by significant turnover on the bench. Over the next six years, four of the high court's seven justices—along with approximately 100 judges statewide—will reach retirement age. Justice Sharon Kennedy acknowledged that change of this magnitude could lead to questions about the stability of state laws and their application.

Opponents of commission-based appointment of judges—also known as the Missouri Plan, for the state in which the judicial selection process originated—have obtained approval from the secretary of state for two identically worded proposed constitutional amendments that would establish contested elections for Missouri's appellate judges.

Two retired judges will co-chair a new task force on judicial independence established by the New Jersey Bar Association. The task force will direct its efforts at "current threats to weaken our judiciary." There is longstanding tension between Governor Chris Christie and the legislature when it comes to making judicial appointments, particularly to the state's high court. There is also longstanding tension between the governor and the supreme court, with Christie promising to remake the court after unfavorable rulings.

Indiana's superior courts are created by statute, and as such, the method of selecting judges is determined by statute as well and varies from county to county. In two counties, superior court judges are chosen through a commission-based appointment process, while in all other counties these judges are chosen in partisan or nonpartisan elections. Both of these selection processes are currently the subject of controversy.

The Coalition for Impartial Justice has been working for several years to move Minnesota from nonpartisan judicial elections to commission-based appointment with retention elections and performance evaluation, which would require amending the state constitution. The proposal has bipartisan support, with sponsors on both sides of the aisle, but some Republican lawmakers have recently withdrawn their support in response to pressure from their party.

The State Bar of Michigan, which represents more than 43,000 attorneys and judges, has asked the secretary of state to require disclosure of funders of "issue ads" in state elections. Specifically, the bar is seeking an interpretive ruling that such ads should be treated as advocacy rather than electioneering and thus as official campaign spending. Such a ruling would require the disclosure of donors who are currently anonymous.