Bar News - April 6, 2001
Judicial Reform Starts With Merit Selection
By: Gregory D. Robbins
The following is an abridged version of testimony given by NHBA President Gregory Robbins to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR Association strongly supports the idea of judicial merit selection. We feel that merit selection of judges may be the single most important judicial reform measure NH could adopt.
It’s no secret that public confidence in our judicial system has been damaged by the impeachment process [of Supreme Court Chief Justice David Brock]—and no judicial system can function effectively without a basic measure of public trust. One sure way to lose the public’s trust is to reinforce a perception that judges are influenced by politics.
One of the clearest examples of this problem occurred in our last presidential election. The Florida Supreme Court, whose judges were all appointed by a Democratic administration, ruled for the Gore campaign, while the US Supreme Court majority, all appointed by Republican administrations, ruled for the Bush campaign. It certainly appeared that political considerations helped shape one or both of these decisions. From my conversations with people, it is impossible to calculate the harm that came to the credibility of the judicial system because of those decisions.
Many of these kinds of problems will go away if we use a true, non-political, merit-based selection system. New Hampshire took a big step forward last year when, by executive order, Gov. Shaheen replaced a judicial selection system we’d had for many years where the appearance was of a selection process based on an "old-boy" network. The new process utilizes a Judicial Selection Commission to forward a list of candidates for the governor to choose from.
With a merit-based system, judges start out with a clean slate. If judges start out by obtaining their appointments based on merit, the public will be more likely to accept that those judges’ decisions are based on the merits of the case. If selection of judges involves politics, the public will be more likely to believe that courtroom decisions involve politics—and although probably not true, it is perceptions that are so important at this time.
Another argument in its favor is that a merit-based system of judicial selection will expand the pool of those likely to consider a judgeship. Under the previous system, a lot of highly qualified people, not believing they had the right "connections," would never have applied.
We support a permanent merit-based judicial selection process, either through legislation, if possible, or through a constitutional amendment, if necessary. Over time, this process will tend to improve the quality of those serving on the bench. While we now have, overall, a distinguished judiciary at all levels, a true, permanent merit-based selection process can only improve on that.
|