Selection snapshots

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”).

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.

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.