Posted by
Aaron Silletto on Saturday, May 31, 2008 11:52:55 AM
To those of you who think that elections are a far inferior method of choosing judges, and prefer a "merit-selection" model like that employed in Missouri and other states, I commend
this brief article from the May 27 edition of
The Wall Street Journal Online. A couple of key paragraphs (emphasis mine):
It was sunny in Tennessee last week, when the state's controversial method of picking judges was allowed to expire amid high-stakes legislative wrangling. The change marks the first time a merit selection plan has been ousted in any state that has adopted it.
***
The Tennessee plan was devised to reduce the role of politics in judicial selection. But as the political drama surrounding it amply demonstrated, the reality has been anything but nonpartisan. Tennessee now has a chance to restore transparency and accountability to judicial nominations – and to show other states the way.
Despite my own personal misfortune at the hands of the Jefferson County voters, I continue to be a believer in judicial elections. The experience of Tennessee in witnessing the political wrangling amply demonstrates that the sometimes ugly election process cannot hold a candle to the backroom politics that accompanies "merit selection" and appointment regimes.