Judicial Retention Elections in Alaska

Covered by Alaska Public Media:

The Alaska Judicial Council has released its recommendations for retention elections this November: "13 of 14 state judges have been given the thumbs up. But one judge, William Estelle, who sits on the bench in Palmer, has not gained Judicial Council approval."

“Judge Estelle filed 16 untrue affidavits, under oath, from September 2011 through February, 2013, swearing that he had completed or issued decisions in all matters that had been pending before him, for more than six months, when in fact, he had not completed those decisions,”

Tennessee Judicial Retention Drama

In August, Tennessee voters will be asked to retain or replace three Supreme Court justices.  NPR says: "The Tennessee Bar Association is all but endorsing three Supreme Court justices sitting for retention elections this year. The group released a poll Friday showing 90 percent of respondents favor keeping the court as it is. The Bar has a policy of not making endorsements in judicial elections. It’s never even polled its members until this year. The association wanted to counter an effort by Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey to unseat three justices appointed by Democrats."

Dahlia Lithwick weighs in.

Selection to the Canadian Supreme Court

News: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the appointment of a Quebec judge to the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday, three months after the top court rejected his previous appointment of Marc Nadon."  Three of the court's nine members must be from Quebec.

The National Post reports opposition party "justice critic Françoise Boivin said Judge Gascon has a 'stellar reputation' and that he was a 'great nomination' for the high court....Ms. Boivin said she has no concerns about a lack of any confirmation hearing, a process the Conservatives established that gives MPs their only chance to question Supreme Court justices about their legal background."

Adam M. Dodek, Vice-Dean Research and Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law,
University of Ottawa (Common Law Section), has written Reforming the Supreme Court Appointment Process, 2004-2014: A Ten Year Democratic Audit

Republicans and Democrats Compromise on New Jersey Supreme Court

Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie decided to re-nominate a Democrat, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, as part of a deal with the Democratic President of the State Senate, Stephen Sweeney. AP reports Christie will have Sweeney’s support for Republican Judge Lee Solomon’s high court nomination in return.

This seems to me a great example of a senate confirmation system working as it should.  When the executive and legislative branches are held by different parties, the judicial branch gets judges from each party.  More on the NJ Supreme Court selection process is here

Comparative Judicial Selection and Judicial Supremacy

Different nations select their judges differently.  I believe the more lawmaking power judges (particularly supreme court justices) have, the more appropriate for them to be selected in a democratic way.  The United States is the "example par excellence" of judicial supremacy over the other branches, according to Judicial Supremacy: Explaining False Starts and Surprising Successes by University of Washington political scientists Victor Menaldo and Nora Williams.  They write:

"The example par excellence of judicial supremacy is the United States system. For
example, in the 2000 case of Bush v Gore the judiciary ruled on the constitutionality of a case
that had an impact on both the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court ultimately
awarded the contested presidential election George W. Bush. While Al Gore’s party held the
executive, the losing branch abided by the decision of the judiciary instead of taking what could
have been dramatic action."

Lobbying by Judges and Courts

Article by Western Carolina University Professor Roger Hartley says:

While budgets are tight and the needs of adjudication come first, courts need to build capacity to effectively lobby, like other agencies and “model” courts in other states do. We know that state chief justices, state court administrators, and local presiding judges and court managers lobby. In prior work, I suggest that the selection and tenure of court leaders needs to be rethought in some states. Courts need to pay close attention to the political, advocacy, and management skills when selecting chief justices. Short tenure or rotation of court leaders is also a problem, as courts might lose important political capital and relationships built by effective court leaders over time.

Tennessee Judicial Retention Elections

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey campaigns against the retention of three sitting state Supreme Court justices.  Channel 5 says "All it would take is one of those seats to give Republicans a majority on the court, which probably would lead to a Republican Attorney General. Getting an attorney general who thinks more like Republican leaders seems to be the lieutenant governor's main motivation."

Idaho Supreme Court Election

Results of one contested and one uncontested race.

Op-ed says:

Liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, recently graded the ethics laws governing judicial elections in each state. Idaho, and most of the other 39 states with elected judges, got an “F” because state code doesn’t consider cases involving a one-time political backer an automatic reason for recusal, an issue that the American Bar Association has repeatedly blasted. Idaho’s judicial election ethics policy scored the lowest on the organization’s list. That’s especially interesting when you consider a record $33.7 million was spent on judicial elections in the United States in 2012, reports the Washington Post.

Judicial Selection and Efforts to "Intimidate" Courts Makes the Washington Post

Are there "disturbing efforts by partisans, politicians and special interests to intimidate our courts" in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri?  Yes, argue Ruth McGregor, retired chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and Randall Shepard, retired chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, in the Washington Post. 

Here is a reply

First Female Native American Federal Judge

Diane Humetewa confirmed by the senate

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)

Washington Supreme Court's First Openly Gay Justice

Mary Yu is apparently also the first Asian American and first female Hispanic member of the court.

AP Reports "Yu was appointed by Gov. Jay Inslee earlier this month. She replaces Justice James Johnson, who announced his retirement last month because of health issues....To keep the seat, she will have to run for election in November to serve the rest of Johnson's term, which was set to expire in January 2017."

Senate Confirmation of Judges Can Be Quite Detailed and Exacting

The Legal Times gives recent examples.

Why the US Supreme Court is Increasingly Partisan

Two leading scholars, William & Mary Law Professor NealDevins and Ohio State Political Science Professor Lawrence Baum, write that “Starting in 2010 the Supreme Court has divided into two partisan ideological blocs, with all the Court’s Democratic appointees on the liberal side and its Republican appointees on the conservative side.” 

Their article, Split Definitive: How Party PolarizationTurned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court, uses “original empirical research to establish that this partisan division is unprecedented in the Court’s history.”  They “show that it is linked to growing partisan polarization among political elites,” which has “prompted presidents — for the first time ever — to make ideology the dominant factor in appointing Justices.”