Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 6, 1994 TAG: 9407060036
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But don't think for a minute that the state's current method for selecting judges is pristinely politics-free. On the contrary. Interested lawyers must first curry favor with other lawyers to line up sufficient support to get the endorsement of local bar associations - special-interest groups, of a sort - which serve as gatekeepers to the bench.
After that, the procedure goes behind the closed doors of Democratic caucuses in the General Assembly's House and Senate, where a candidate's fate may depend largely on his or her political bona fides, his or her family, and social and professional connections with Democrats. (Though theoretically the entire legislature elects judges, in practice Democrats, who have always controlled both houses, enjoy the ultimate say.)
In the end, the candidate's appointment may have not a thing to do with his or her qualifications, but turn on vote-swapping deals on unrelated issues, party-building strategies, raw power plays within an area's legislative delegation, House-Senate feuds, or even plots of revenge.
That such a system has generally produced good judges in Virginia is ... well, lucky for Virginia. But it's not a very good system. It demeans those who aspire to the bench. It takes too little account of merit. It excludes the public entirely.
And if it isn't rotten, it nevertheless smells a bit. How many judges can honestly claim to be above the political fray if they must preside over cases where one side or the other is represented by a lawyer-legislator who's had a vote in getting the judge his job, who may help decide if the judge will or won't keep his job, and who even sets the salary and benefits the judge will receive?
There is a better way, notwithstanding many entrenched Democratic lawmakers' fondness for the status quo.
A minority of legislators, with the support of some prestigious bar associations and judges, have for years pushed for merit-selection of judges. Various proposals have been put forward, most calling for a bipartisan judicial nominating commission composed of both lawyers and lay members.
Such a commission could be structured to get around the kinds of objections raised recently by Del. Clifton Woodrum, D-Roanoke. Woodrum says he fears the process could fall into the hands of a commission dominated by big Richmond law firms, thus weakening Western Virginia's voice in the selection of judges. But a reformed process, involving a nominating commission, could be geographically balanced.
It need not even require that the General Assembly make its final choices from the commission's list of nominees - though lawmakers presumably would need to show good cause for going outside the panel's recommendations.
Above all, it would put Virginia in step with other states that have moved to merit-selection for the best of reasons: to help ensure that the judicial system will be peopled with the most qualified candidates available.
No option can ever entirely remove politics from the selection of judges. But under Virginia's current, politically excessive system, some of the best candidates find themselves disqualified for reasons having nothing to do with their legal abilities or judicial temperament. Perhaps Democratic legislators will feel friendlier toward reform as the possibility of a Republican takeover in the assembly looms larger.
by CNB