Print |
E-mail to a friend
OPINIONS
Editorial: Judicial recommendations don't go far enough
Expensive election campaigns for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which operates out of the Capitol complex in Charleston, is one of the issues related to how the stateÕs justices and judges are chosen.
Purchase this photoThe final report of a group commissioned to study possible reforms in West Virginia's judicial system contained some strong arguments for revamping the way the state's judges are selected.
Unfortunately, the group's recommendations weren't nearly so forceful and, if followed, could well leave West Virginia with much the same system it has now.
Gov. Joe Manchin proposed the study of the judicial system in February and appointed members to the Independent Commission on Judicial Reform in April, after West Virginia's court system had become a frequent subject of debate.
The U.S. Supreme Court has faulted state Chief Justice Brent Benjamin for failing to remove himself from a multimillion-dollar appeal involving the company of his top 2004 campaign supporter. Business groups have criticized West Virginia's civil justice system as a "judicial hellhole." The state's Supreme Court elections, which are conducted on a partisan basis, have been among the most expensive of their kind, particularly the 2004 race, according to a report by The Associated Press.
Among the commission's tasks was to study whether a merit-based system should be adopted to select judges as opposed to the partisan elections conducted now. It also was to consider reforms in judicial campaign financing and reporting requirements and whether an intermediate court of appeals and a business court should be established.
The commission recommended establishing a midlevel appeals court, with the governor appointing all of its members initially; setting a more formal structure for an advisory committee to recommend judicial candidates for appointment by the governor and offering public funding to candidates for one of the two state Supreme Court seats up for election in 2012. It recommended further study of the need for a business court.
But the commission did not recommend any major changes in the selection of judges or justices. Instead, the commission urged state lawmakers to wait until the terms of the newly appointed midlevel appellate judges expire before deciding a permanent selection method. It is here that the commission's findings are disappointing.
The commission's report acknowledged the problems inherent in the current system. Under it, judicial candidates will continue accepting substantial donations from lawyers, individuals or corporations who may later appear before them, putting judges in "untenable" situations that undermine trust in the judiciary. The commission also said that the growth of spending on judicial campaigns will increase the perception that "justice may be bought."
The commission also acknowledged the problems that confront any meaningful changes in campaign finance and reporting rules. The commission said it views the growth of third-party money in judicial campaigns as a "significant threat to the integrity" of the judiciary.
But in urging limits on third-party groups' influence, the commission noted that recent reform efforts have had little success because of court rulings. And the idea of offering public financing to curb spending will only go as far as the number of candidates willing to participate.
Meanwhile, the commission's report points out that merit selection of judges already is widespread in the state because it is used to fill judicial vacancies. More than 45 percent of the state's 70 active circuit court judges were appointed.
Following the commission's own reasoning, it seems, cries out for a movement away from partisan elections. Merit selection of judges, who would then face voters in periodic retention elections, would go a long way toward eliminating the ills that afflict the current system but still give voters a voice. Big money, whether from direct contributions to the candidates or from third parties, would be taken out of the picture. And with that gone, the notion that "justice can be bought" in West Virginia would be reduced.
The commission noted in its report that in 1998, when a similar study was conducted, a poor public perception of the courts was a growing concern, and that it is no better, and perhaps worse, today. Why wait several more years for any substantive change?
