Ever wonder how the judges selection process works?

In Minnesota, as in many states, the state court judges are elected.  The constitution of the state requires this.  However, if a judge retires before his term is finished the governor may appoint a new judge to fill the spot.  The federal courts are different.  Under the U.S. Constitution, all federal judges are appointed for life by the president.  We’ll look at the state system.  That’s where the controversy starts.

It sounds so democratic.  The judges selection process depends on the votes of the public.  Then why are respected commissions recommending that we trash the system?  And instead, rely on governor’s appointments only?  No more elections.

What are the pros and cons of each judges selection criteria?

Let’s look at elections first:

Benefits

• Minnesota constitution requires it
• It’s an open, transparent, and fair judges selection process
• The widest group of citizens can participate and choose

Problems

• Most voters are uninformed about the candidates
• Low turn-out so that a small percentage of the public has the power to elect
• Money in judicial campaigns may influence voters to elect a one-issue candidate.  He may be totally unqualified

Let’s look at the judges selection and appointment process:

Benefits

• A panel of experts checks-out each candidate prior to getting the job
• The best candidates would be recommended to the governor
• It’s still a fair judges selection process since any lawyer may apply to the panel for consideration

Problems

• There isn’t any voter input
• The process may become politicized depending on the candidate’s connection to the sitting governor
• It’s undemocratic and is controlled by an elite panel of people
• It may be influenced by financial contributions to the governor who could ignore the panel’s recommendations

With these problems, why are so many states looking at changing the judges selection process?  And instead rely only on a panel’s recommendations for appointments?

One issue candidates in several states have mounted expensive campaigns.  Many have won seats as judges in elections.  For instance, people who are anti-abortion may get behind a candidate for that issue only.  They put lots of money into the campaign.  Since voter turn-out is typically low, it only takes a small group of determined people to vote in their candidate—even if he’s unqualified in every other respect.

What do you think?  To change to an appointment process for judges selection, would require amending the constitution.  Are you afraid of one-issue candidates taking over?