Sun Sets On Method Of Picking Judges

Tennessee’s selection method for appellate judges is not flawless.
Critics contend it gives too much power to special interests within the state bar and that it has resulted in a leftward tilt of the state judiciary. Others complain that the process is far too secretive.
These are reasons for reform. But that’s not what happened. State Republicans – led by Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey – junked the Judicial Selection Commission to make a political point.
The likely result is a return to direct election of appellate judges – the most overtly political way to pick those who will sit on the bench. Tennessee lawmakers should think again before turning back the clock in this manner.
Legislators have been skirmishing over judges since the General Assembly session began. Ramsey was outspoken about his desire to reform the present selection system, but some in the Republican ranks always favored a return to direct elections. Looks like they might get their wish.
Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, also has pushed for reform. In particular, the governor wanted the commission to do its work in public.
The Democratic-controlled House, meanwhile, was lukewarm to both the governor’s suggestions and Ramsey’s proposal. The House voted 64-34 on Tuesday to renew the Judicial Selection Commission without any of the changes that Ramsey (or Bredesen, for that matter) wanted.
This led to a dramatic showdown in the Senate. Former Lt. Gov. John Wilder, who is retiring after 44 years in the Senate, tried to bring the Judicial Selection Commission renewal bill up for a floor vote Tuesday. The effort failed on an 18-15 vote with all of the Republicans, an independent and one Democrat voting “no.”
Wilder was reduced to pleading with his colleagues, “I’ll put whatever amendments you want on it. I’ll do whatever you want to do. I wish you’d do what’s right. ... I’m telling you: You shouldn’t do this. This is the most important bill we’ve got here this year.”
Wilder’s impassioned lobbying on behalf of the bill was for naught. Senate Republicans refused to allow a vote on the substance of the bill. Some of their post-vote gloating indicates this show of force was meant to send a message to House Democrats over the other chamber’s refusal to go along with reforms.
So in Republican land, a dead commission is superior to a live one, if that live one doesn’t measure up in every fashion. This maneuver also ignores the possibility that some compromise might have been fashioned when the Senate and House versions were reconciled in conference committee.
Perhaps Tennessee Republicans are merely following the example set by our dysfunctional leaders in Congress – no retreat, no surrender, no compromise. It’s a bad precedent.
With the legislative session all but over, it appears the Judicial Selection Commission will wind down and come to an end in 2009. Whether lawmakers can mend the damage before that time is unclear. If there is a way to reach a compromise, lawmakers should do so.
Direct election of appellate judges is a recipe for a more partisan judiciary, not a more neutral one. But judging by their public statements about the need to stack the courts with more “conservative judges,” that’s exactly what some Republican lawmakers want. They don’t want impartial justice; they want justice that serves their ideology.

HOW IT WORKS

* The 17-member Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission makes appellate judge recommendations to the governor. The governor can pick one of the three candidates on the first slate or ask for a second slate of three candidates. The governor must pick a name from the second slate.
* The commission members are appointed by the lieutenant governor (in his role as speaker of the Senate), the House speaker and the governor. However, the commission members must be selected from lists submitted by various legal groups, including the Tennessee Bar Association and prosecutors’ and public defenders’ organizations.
* Once appointed, appellate judges face the voters on a “yes” or “no” retention vote every eight years.