Our View

Our View

Does proposed change to judicial appointments have any merit?

The debate over whether our state Supreme Court justices should be appointed rather than elected has now reached the pointed that the Arkansas Bar Association is now recommending an appointment system of the “merit selection” type.

So, what does that actually mean? Well, this Task Force, comprised of lawyers and judges, wants to do away with the citizens voting for these seven Supreme Court justices and replacing it with an appointment system saying this will “protect and promote the integrity of the judiciary.”

Even if this process were to gain traction it would still require a constitutional amendment that the voters of Arkansas would have to approve.

This latest development comes in the aftermath of state Supreme Court races that involved negative political advertising funded by out-of-state special political interest groups and organizations.

This wasn’t the only time this problem has come up, and in fact, has occurred during the last three Supreme Court races in previous elections.

Furthermore, this group of judges and lawyers who make up this Task Force has also recommended that if their recommendations are adopted that they should also include more restrictions on the type of campaign contributions that can be donated to judicial campaigns, greater efforts at disclosure and, when necessary, recusal of judges.

So then, let’s say this method of selecting judges moves forward, just how would this nomination commission look like? Well, according to the Task Force recommendations the nominating commission would include legal professionals to winnow applicants for the bench to a list of three applicants. The governor would then pick the next justice from those three.

We’re told this process, often times referred to as “merit selection,” is law in 22 other states. Arkansas is one of 14 states that has nonpartisan elections decided by the voters.

Opponents of such a process argue that it cuts the voters out altogether and creates the possibility of political manipulation, similar to what we now goes on in the selection process of our U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Proponents contend the average voter lacks the knowledge to clearly understand what it is they are supposed to be assessing.

The head of the Bar Association, Fort Smith lawyer Eddie Walker said, “We believe the public is best served if they can make an informed decision. If you have people voting on only name recognition or advertising, then you’re obviously not in a position to make an informed decision.”

We assume from that belief that these judges and lawyers think the “average” voters may be ignorant to the facts necessary to make an intelligent and informed decision.

And, in all honesty, there is some truth to that assumption in that most voters, when asked, know very little to nothing about Supreme Court candidates, their qualifications or the responsibilities of those positions.

Therefore, it can be accurately stated that many voters could simply have no interest in Supreme Court races and have little to no “intelligent” knowledge of the candidates seeking them. With that in mind, it is the contention of proponents of this alternative selection process that this “merit selection” be instituted. What are your thoughts?

BIBLE VERSE

He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length. An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression. A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit. Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not. The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe. Many seek the ruler's [9] favour; but every man's judgment cometh from the Lord.

29:21-27

Proverbs