Judging the way we Choose Judges

First it was Justice Clarence Thomas' controversial confirmation hearings. Then it was the Greylord and Gambat scandals uncovering corruption in the courtrooms. But when Illinois Supreme Court Justice James Heiple's mug shot appeared in newspapers after his scuffle with police, the public had just about had it.

Once again all eyes are focused on the judiciary, particularly as the November election nears. We have come to expect a great deal from those who are elected to sit in judgment, as well we should. And when they let us down, the collective disappointment is apparent.

What is also apparent is the deteriorating quality of some of this year's candidates to the state's judiciary, a concern of the current judicial leadership. Stories surface of lawyers barely out of law school running in the subcircuits. Retired judges are being recalled because of the paucity of qualified people. And scores of candidates labeled "not qualified" by bar associations or the media run in anonymity.

The community relies on a competent judiciary to establish guidelines on how to live under a rule of law.

The methods for ensuring quality judges in Illinois aren't working. Granted, many fine elected candidates sit on the bench today, but how many others have been passed over or discouraged from even trying in the highly politicized selection system where political parties appoint the chosen?

"Merit selection" has become a fashionable position these days. A state constitutional amendment was introduced in Springfield last year extolling merit selection, but thankfully, it died a quiet death. A close examination indicates it is subject to the same political vices that skew the current subcircuit election system.

I suggest a system that would remove some of the political influence in the process while at the same time appealing to those advocating merit selection.

An elected or appointed review panel would certify candidates for the ballot. Operating under a legislative mandate to ascertain certain requirements before allowing one to don judicial robes, its meeting would be open to the public. Judges still would be elected, but now a measure of confidence in the candidates' credentials would be established.

Some might argue that bar associations act as the public's screening board. But now it seems nearly every group of lawyers has jumped on the judicial evaluation bandwagon, and the results are often conflicting and confusing.

Should judges be judged on whether their decisions reflect the social or moral values held by a political party? Or should they be evaluated based upon their legal training and experience, their personal attributes, their dedication to administering the law and their adherence to professional norms of good behavior and ethical conduct?

Judges should be elected based on their capabilities as judges, not on their successes as deal makers or political insiders. And they should be nominated by broad-based elected or appointed commissions that understand the difference.