Justice Chambers weighs in on judicial elections
Justice Tom Chambers – the only Washington justice with a blog – has offered his opinion on the debate over how we select judges.
He discusses the issue in a very thoughtful post that acknowledges the flaws in each system. Elections, appointments, selection committees ... they all have their shortcomings.
He discounts the concern that judges up for re-election would pander to popular opinion. “[I]n my 40 years in the law, the judges of Washington State have consistently done the courageous thing and are not swayed by fear of being unelected.” But Chambers cites problems in other states and says the election process can potentially threaten judicial independence.
Lifetime appointments, he says, are also problematic. “Some judges appointed for life have become tyrants and do not treat lawyers, parties, or jurors with respect. On the other hand, it was my experience that state court judges faced with periodic elections see every lawyer, party, and witness as a future potential vote and almost always treated all with respect.”
Appointment committees that screen potential judges? “In the past, such blue ribbon panels have been perceived as a good old boy network; clubbish and difficult for women and minorities to break into.”
Justice Chambers offers an interesting Solomon compromise: elect trial judges, who are closer to their communities, and appoint appellate judges, who are ultimately responsible for interpreting the law. He recommends using a diverse appointment committee and requiring appellate judges to stand for retention elections.
Chambers concludes by showing he is a pragmatist. “Although interesting, this discussion is likely academic as I think it highly unlikely that the people of Washington State are ever going to relinquish their constitutional right to elect judges.”
