- Quickdraw McLaw
- 20 Comments
- 167 Views
We’re already three weeks into 2015 and last year’s November elections are over two months behind us, but we’re still seeing the effects of that campaign. As we mentioned last week, there are still lots of campaign signs up around the valley. Also, judges are still asking for money. Presently, their requests are to help them “retire the debt,” but isn’t it a little disconcerting that judges are still taking bribes asking for funds after the campaign is over and they should be focusing on the job they were elected to do? Over the course of last year’s election season, the I-team as 8NewsNow did a series of stories on judicial fundraising. Despite all that focus on a very questionable process, nothing comes of it. We remain in the status quo with attorneys and firms sponsoring their favorite judges and those judges continuing to hear the cases of their contributors without recusing themselves. Is this ever going to change? Is it actually possible to change this system or are we, as Robert Eglet said, “stuck in the system we have?” What changes would you make? Do you think the appointment/retention system would work any better? Should we have stricter controls on contributions and recusals? What are your thoughts?
"Do you think the appointment/retention system would work any better?"
Yes.
The bench is loaded with people who became judges either (1) because it was the natural progression of their government employment career, or (2) because they were not very successful lawyers and becoming a judge actually represented a position where the money is better than what they were making and their incompetence was not a hindrance to continued employment. All but a few of our judges fall into one (or possibly both) of these categories. As a result, we have judges who are actually better at aligning themselves with people who can help them get elected than they are at the position to which they are elected.
With an informed appointment committee vetting potential candidates for the bench, we might actually have a higher percentage of judges whose credentials, intelligence, and experience qualify them for the job.
^
Absolutely correct.
And before somebody says, "But then the bad judges are just there for longer, and they cannot be voted out!" How many of the bad judges were voted out in the last election? Precious few.
In an appointment system, the recommendation committee narrows the field to the qualified candidates. Then the governor gets to select one judge from, typically, three candidates recommended by the committee. Between the appointment committee and the governor, it is much more difficult for a prospective judge to sway the result. Also, because of the selection process, many unqualified candidates choose not to go through the hassle, knowing they will not be selected.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. I doubt we will see any change at all.
This was an eloquent and articulate enunciation of what we all think.
There's a side benefit to an appointment system: more good lawyers would be willing to take the bench. The current system is undignified and dirty; at least a lot of people see it that way.
I know it's difficult to believe for some; but there are those who would rather not become a judge if it means having to have their face plastered on every dirt lot in town. There are those who find groveling for election money distasteful. There are also those who would be uncomfortable sitting as judge before attorneys who have paid their election expenses. The judiciary's independence is taken away by the election process. And good successful lawyers who might otherwise make good judges would rather defer than become involved in some of the ethical ambiguities personal degradation created by the current system.
And is it so difficult to believe that some of the people who would rather avoid these undignified necessities of becoming a judge might actually be good candidates?
And is it so difficult to believe that some of the people who don't mind the slimier aspects of the election process might not mind them because they themselves don't have other options? Or worse yet, that they themselves are slimy?
To quote 9:46 AM, "In an appointment system, the recommendation committee narrows the field to the qualified candidates. Then the governor gets to select one judge from, typically, three candidates recommended by the committee. Between the appointment committee and the governor, it is much more difficult for a prospective judge to sway the result."
Best laugh of the morning.
It might be helpful to go back and review the comments about Abbi Silver after she was appointed to the Appellate Court. And it was not Sandoval's first "mistake" of the Judicial appointment process.
yeah, but wasn't part of Silver's easy in a common campaign manager or something like that?
Politics and back scratching in judicial elections and politics and back scratching in judicial appointments. If a common campaign manager creates an easy (questionable?) appointment, it does not speak well of the appointment process as described.
Both options are seriously flawed.
* ethical ambiguities and personal degradation
There's nothing honorable about juiced up whores.
At the end of the day, the reasons that bad candidates make it to the bench are as mysterious as large breasted train-wrecks being paid to embarrass themselves on television.
1. The public at large is generally apathetic to all but grotesque examples of incompetence or partiality (the Hasselback-Jones syndrome, as it were.) They are neither motivated to seek a stance in elections, nor to demand and enforce high standards in an appointment process.
2. In almost all cases, questions of competence, ethics, professionalism, etc. are simply and even highly subjective. Even when examples of unsuitability for the bench are gross, there are legitimate defenders of the candidate/judge.
I have no more faith in appointment/retention than I do in elections in terms of the quality of the product….I just prefer it because it's tidier and ostensibly cheaper overall.
I do think that the field of candidates might contain more people qualified for the bench because some of us simply don't want to raise money or campaign-skills not necessary for a good judge.
I have said this before but I don't think the problem is how you select judges so much as how you get rid of them. On that, elected judge system wins hands down. On the selection side it's cronyism/nest feathering v. willingness to campaign and ability to do so effectively (and all that entails). But I think it's a wash and since elected judges are easier to get rid of than appointed ones (Claiborne, eg.) not sure why all the insistence that appointment is far superior than elections. Point to the federal bench — but why do they get the people they do? Lifetime tenure and decent pay, not selection process. Not sure lifetime tenure is such a good thing.
@9:30pm, that's why the suggestion is for a "appointment/retention" system. The retention part is an election every 4 or 6 years, whatever, on whether an appointed judge should retain his/her seat.
You say that elections are a good way to get rid of bad judges. This is demonstrably false. Elections are a good way for bad judges to use money and power to destroy viable options.
Yes 7:14. Just look at the "miraculous" way Judges Sturman, Walsh and Gonzalez became unopposed after their opponents were threatened. Look at the harassment of opponents to judicial incumbents via anonymous telephone calls after close of filing but before last day to withdraw. Look at the Bare/Eglet/Thomas attempted payoff as reported April 6 in last year's judicial election. The system is very corrupt and broken and law makers need to improve Clark County's "Democratic way" of judicial selection and accountability.
Does anyone really think an appointment system is better? Campaign contributions that are currently made directly to the judges will just end up in the pockets of those who are making the appointments and the judges will be advised of who they owe.
Just received another, timely, solicitation from Judge Smith to retire his debt. Judge Smith is one of the poster children for all that is wrong with our system. He's a judge (purportedly) prone to favoritism, who will certainly "recall" those who helped him "retire" his debt. One more "set of quotes" just for fun.
When is the statutory cut off for judicial campaign donations for an election held in November 2014? I realize campaign finance reports were due January 15 for the period ending December 31. But when is it too late for any more donations?
"But when is it too late for any more donations?"
The day after the judge rules against you.
The problem with an appointed system is that you are unable to uncover the hidden connections between the attorneys and the parties. For example, an attorney or a law firm or a member of a pressure group that helped a judicial candidate get appointed is not easy to find out. It is not transparent or apparent. It is the hidden influence that can kill your case. At least with the campaign contributions, you can follow the money and the possible influence. An appointed system is the last thing we need in this town with all the backroom deals and juice. Plus the elective system generally causes judges to be nicer to the lawyers because they can be held accountable for a mean or lousy demeanor.
The elective system only causes judges to be nicer to lawyers who have contributed to their campaign. As a broke-ass solo attorney who can't compete with the big firms in contributions, that's not a system I want.