 |
Appointing Judges, a Really Bad Idea
Wednesday, July 9, 1997
Used by permission of the author.
When a group of plaintiff/defense attorneys get together to purpose
a new way to help voters, you should be scared. Their '"new"
proposal is to use a merit system of selecting judges and an evaluation
committee to monitor them.
This system is nothing new and has been used effectively in Arizona to
produce some of the worst judges in the country. I served as the only non-attorney
on the Maricopa County Bench-Bar Commission and was horrified to discover;
their only concern was to prevent the governor from changing their little
fiefdom back to free elections. They were not concerned about justice but
how to dispose of more cases in their courts. They really believed their
appointment was for life and impossible to be voted out of office.
I sent a letter to the 30-plus judges up for re-election asking why I should
vote for them to be retained. My responses were: zero from the Supreme
Court, one from the Court of Appeals and one abusive letter from a judge
in the Supreme Court, mocking my nerve for writing such a request. Each
judge was informed that no response meant a "no" vote, but it
did no good. Even the worst of the worst were re-elected because the public
did not have a choice, nor information, which is a fundamental principle
in any election.
The performance evaluation committee's evaluation of the judges is a judicial
farce. It is nothing more than a rubber stamp to maintain the status quo.
The public deserves information and accountability with the right to a
choice, not opinions from a rubber stamp committee or, God forbid, lawyers.
The merit system hasn't worked in Arizona and it won't work in Alabama.
It is nothing more than a bad idea on the loose.
Edward Goldwater,
Woodlawn.
|
