ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, January 23, 1996 TAG: 9601230033
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
VIRGINIA'S SENATE has changed its rules for appointing judges, giving Republican senators some voice in the selection. Good.
It used to be that Democrats, in clear control of both legislative chambers, picked judges in closed-door caucuses and ramrodded their choices through pro forma floor votes without a farthing of concern for GOP legislators' views.
The Senate's session-opening shift will allow area delegations, regardless of their mix of Democrats and Republicans, to recommend judges - thus removing the authority from the Democratic caucus.
This rule change - prompted by the Senate's 20-20 membership split and the constitutional fact that lieutenant governors can't vote on judicial selections - marks a significant improvement over the old method. But it isn't a permanent fix for a political spoils system.
For one thing, the split isn't likely to last forever; the rules change could easily be reversed by a future Senate majority of whichever party. For another, with the House of Delegates still in the grip of Democratic spoils sports, a Senate rule doesn't guarantee even a temporary fix.
With Republicans having achieved parity in the Senate and reached striking distance in the House, now is a good time for GOP lawmakers to press anew for merit-selection of judges. Overturning the spoils system was a staple in the legislative campaigns of Republicans long before they had the numbers to do anything more than make noises about it. Now they can prove that their true wish has been for a better system, not to replace the old system's masters.
Now, too, is a good time for Democrats to embrace merit-selection - while they still enjoy a tenuous majority. While mitigating the prospect of a GOP takeover, they'd earn brownie points toward a good-government badge, even though they perpetuated the crassly partisan system during the decades they dominated the legislature.
Probably the most workable proposal would be a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and citizens that would screen qualifications of prospective judicial candidates and make recommendations to the General Assembly. The legislature still would make the final decision. But it would do so on a less politicized basis than now, when qualifications and merit may be shucked aside behind closed-caucus doors in a legislative frenzy of deal-making on unrelated issues. Bar associations and sitting judges widely back the independent-commission concept.
Democratic lawmakers contend that their system has generally produced fair and competent judges. They're right, up to a point, especially in these parts. But it's still a system rife with political cronyism and potential conflict of interest. Judges still preside over cases in which one side may be represented by a lawyer-legislator who helps appoint and reappoint judges and set their salaries.
The new Senate rule, giving regional delegations the recommending authority, is a gesture to Republicans' political interests. But those interests don't necessarily coincide with the public interest, any more than do the Democrats' political interests. Near-parity in the assembly offers an unusual opportunity for reform that is less likely to get done when one party or the other enjoys firm control.
LENGTH: Medium: 61 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB