Tennessee Supreme Court Selection

Tennessee voters in November amended the Tennessee Constitution to a "federal model" system in which the legislature confirms the governor's nominee to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The new constitutional provision in Article VI, Section 3 reads:

Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be appointed for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the discretion of the governor; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state. Confirmation by default occurs if the Legislature fails to reject an appointee within sixty calendar days of either the date of appointment, if made during the annual legislative session, or the convening date of the next annual legislative session, if made out of session. The Legislature is authorized to prescribe such provisions as may be necessary to carry out Sections two and three of this article.

Legislation necessary to carry out this system divides the Tennessee House and Senate, as explained by Bill Raftery. The Senate passed a bill in which the nominee would have win separate votes in each house of the legislature, while the House approved a bill in which confirmation would be a single vote that combines all members of the house and senate.

West Virginia Switches From Partisan to Non-Partisan Judicial Elections

According to Bill Raftery, West Virginia's legislature voted to "move the state to nonpartisan judicial elections at all levels" making it "the fourth state to move from partisan to nonpartisan elections in the last twenty or so years:

• Arkansas: In 2000 voters approved Amendment 80, a rewrite of the state’s Judiciary Article, which included nonpartisan elections for judges.
• Mississippi: Most state courts were moved to nonpartisan elections under the 1994 Nonpartisan Judicial Elections Act; Justice of the Peace Court races remain partisan.
• North Carolina: The state’s courts were moved to nonpartisan ballots in a piecemeal fashion: Superior (1996), District (2001), and finally the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court (2002)."

Should Retired Judges be Able to Practice Law?

Retired judges practicing law raises serious concerns, which is one reason to support judicial retention systems (like life tenure or a long term of years) that keep a judge on the bench until retirement age. Bills to prevent retired judges from practicing law were recently introduced in Puerto Rico.

Bill Raftery explains:

two bills contending with the issue of retired judges that would effectively ban the former jurists from practicing law. PC 1270 as introduced would have prohibited a retired Chief Justice or President Judge of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico from representing any person before a court, administrative or quasi-judicial agency. Prohibits person from providing such courts/agencies legal services. As amended the bill would have allowed a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to restart their law practice, but prohibited them from appearing in court, administrative proceedings, alternative dispute forums, or generally representing people or corporations in any proceeding. Further, the amended bill provided that the person’s judicial pension is forfeited where such representations take place. It was approved by the full House 10/10/13 and is pending in the Senate Judicial, Security, and Veterans Committee. A similar bill (PC 1311) identical to the original PC 1270 remains in the House Labor and Public Service Retirement Systems Committee.

Arkansas Judicial Selection

Discussed here by Bill Raftery.  He provides good information but I wish he'd drop the advocacy phrase "merit selection" for commission based (or "Missouri Plan") selection processes.

Hawaii Judicial Selection

Good summary by Bill Raftery:

Hawaii: The state’s Governor (or Chief Justice for District Court) is responsible for appointment for a judge’s initial term from a list prepared by the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission. The pick is then subject to Senate confirmation. However, for subsequent terms, the judge need only return to the Judicial Nominating Commission for reappointment; neither the Governor nor the Senate plays a role. (Hawaii Constitution Art. VI, Sec. 3)

Vermont Judicial Selection

Nice summary by Bill Raftery:

Vermont: For judges of the state’s Supreme and Superior Courts, the Governor makes an appointment subject to Senate confirmation. For subsequent terms, however, the Governor plays no role. Instead, judges submit their names to the legislature where they are vetted by a Joint Committee on Judicial Retention. The judge is automatically reconfirmed “unless a majority of the members of the General Assembly voting on the question vote against continuation in office” (emphasis added, Vermont Constitution § 34 and 4 V.S.A. § 607 & 608)

Mandatory Retirement Age for Louisiana Judges

Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel reports that the Louisiana Senate has voted to eliminate the mandatory retirement age for judges.

For what it's worth, I think judges can be too old or too young.  I think we should try to get judges with the wisdom that comes from experience, but who are still young enough to be mentally sharp and hard working. Perhaps the ideal ages for judges are from about 50 to 70.  Sure, some younger than that are ready and some older than that are still sharp.  But minimum and maximum ages may do more good than harm overall.

When Is A Judgeship Vacant?

"When is a judicial office vacant for purposes of allowing a governor to fill the vacancy?" asks Gavel to Gavel's Bill Raftery, who discusses a Florida bill to answer this question.

Filibustering or Delaying Confirmation Votes on State Judges

In about a dozen states, the governor's high court nominees face a confirmation vote by the state senate or other popularly elected body.   Should the senate have to hold such a vote promptly or should it be allowed to delay a vote? 

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is, Bill Raftery (Gavel to Gavel) points out, finding it hard to get his judicial nominees through the Democratically controlled Senate because "the Democratic leadership of the Senate has simply declined to schedule hearings or votes for nominees."  A Republican NJ senator has introduced a resolution would counteract that, providing “a 90-day time limit on hearing nominations to the Supreme Court. If the Senate refuses to vote within 90 days, the nominee would win confirmation automatically.”

As Bill Raftery explains, other states have automatic confirmation deadlines like this (including my state of Kansas which recently instituted a senate confirmation system for its court of appeals) and other states have automatic rejection of nominees if a vote is not held by the deadline.