Certify Candidates but Keep the Ballot Box

The bench and bar are taking a closer look at just who might be under the judicial robes as the November election nears.

In hopes of avoiding a roster of judges who have barely seen the inside of a courtroom, talk of merit selection has resurfaced on the news and editorial pages of newspapers across the state. Legislation proposing amendments to the Illinois Constitution for the merit selection of Cook County judges recently failed in Springfield. The two proposals were immediately criticized by the Illinois State Bar Association Board of Governors for being too political in their Republican sponsorship and systematic court packing methods.

I agree.

But an ISBA merit selection proposal fared no better in my mind. Senate Joint Resolution-Constitutional Amendment 31 allowed for nominating commissions in each judicial district, circuit and subcircuit to recommend three names for each vacancy to the Supreme Court, which would be the appointing authority. Justices on the state's high court would remain elected under the ISA proposal.

That result wouldn't be quite as bad as the pure horse-trading proposal under a Republican-sponsored bill, which called for a 17-member commission to select circuit court judges and Illinois appellate court justices within Cook County.

The governor would have appointed Illinois Supreme Court justices with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Where are the checks and balances? I have been told stories of merit selection in other states where the governor leaves such vacancies open until the politically correct candidate is put forward. Thankfully, that plan, too, failed in Springfield.

Another Illinois proposal called for a constitutional amendment that would require all judges elected or appointed after January to be at least 35 years old. Circuit court judges also would have to be licensed attorneys for a decade, including for five years in Illinois. Appointed associate judges would need to be licensed attorneys for eight years, including five in Illinois. That, too, didn't pass in time for a referendum to appear on the November ballot, but it certainly represents a step in the right direction.

Institutionalizing accountability in the judicial selection process is necessary if qualified people are to set the guidelines as how to live under a rule of law that benefits everyone as a whole. The current system has served this state well in establishing the current fine judiciary.

But of late it is being exploited by those who have sought out loopholes that allow virtually anyone who has earned a law degree to merely throw his or her name in the hopper, then use ethnicity, politics or other sheer marketing means to promote oneself without any assurance of quality. And with the current saturated legal market, it's no wonder more and more younger candidates are turning to the judicial ranks.

Then it must be determined which selection method best serves as an instrument in fairly serving everyone.

The answer lies in whether a citizen whose liberty, reputation, property or bodily injuries at stake would want the judge presiding in his or her case to have been slated as a judge based upon influential political friends or the person's qualifications for the position.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, merit selection surely is not the answer.

At its worst, merit selection becomes a power grab in which politicians with an agenda make judicial selections in an effort to shift the balance of the judiciary to their own political viewpoint, whether it be conservatism, libertarianism, even Buchanan-ism. At best, it says the public isn't qualified to select the state's judiciary, but the politicians are.

I would suggest a de-politicized appointed judicial review panel that would first certify judicial candidates for the ballot under certain pre-ordained, objective requirements. Attorneys must serve on this panel to have input from those most familiar with the judicial process.

Some may argue that bar associations act as the public's screening board, but the results can be dizzying. What's more, even the candidates appear to be avoiding the bar association review process. For instance, more than 47 percent of the candidates running, 99 out of 210 for the First District or Circuit Court vacancies, chose not to even participate in the Women's Bar Association of Illinois evaluations this year.

Things have to change.

Judges make crucial choices in their determination of the relevant facts, in the selection of appropriate legal principles and precedent, and in the application of those principles to the facts. And the public now sees these choices inevitably influenced by the judge's personal attitudes and values.

The Baby Richard decision, the O.J. Simpson trial and other high-profile cases indicate that the judiciary has the important role of taking on life's issues. Whether one agrees with the outcomes of these and other cases, the community relies on a competent judiciary to establish an appropriate rule of law that ultimately benefits everyone.

The public deserves nothing less.