Gov. Bill Haslam announced today that he has issued Executive Order No. 41 establishing the Governor’s Council for Judicial Appointments – a group of 11 members that will recommend candidates to fill vacancies for state trial and appellate courts. The action follows approval of a constitutional amendment establishing a new method for selecting judges on the state Supreme Court and intermediate appellate courts in Tennessee. “This council will allow us to select men and women of the highest caliber to ensure a fair, impartial and independent judiciary,” Haslam said. “The people have spoken in approving the constitutional amendment, and Tennesseans can feel confident about our judiciary under this process.” The new council replaces the commission Haslam previously established. The AOC has more.

As part of Gavel to Gavels’ review of Tennessee’s Amendment 2, the publication compares the final provision regarding the retention election for appellate judges with similar provisions in others states. Twenty states provide for some form of retention election at some stage in the judge’s career, however they don’t all operate quite the same. Sixteen states use the typical retention system: a judge is initially appointed to the bench and then serves for a short period of time. The judge then must receive a simple majority of votes in a yes/no retention race to receive a full term. The language of the question also varies by state with some using “yes/no” and others “retain/replace.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed dismissal of a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the "Tennessee Plan" under which the justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court and judges of the intermediate appellate courts will stand for retention election on Aug. 7. The lawsuit, brought by Knoxville lawyer Herbert Moncier, is the second unsuccessful federal challenge to the plan, which has been upheld by every state and federal court to examine the issue.

Efforts to end Missouri's merit selection of judges through a voter initiative apparently fell short, Gavel to Gavel reports. The Missouri Secretary of State announced yesterday the ballot initiatives that had garnered enough signatures to be considered in 2014, but missing from the list were several that would have ended merit selection of judges. In Colorado, meanwhile, two initiatives are pending as supporters have until Aug. 4 to obtain the required signatures. One proposed constitutional amendment would increase the vote required for retention (from a majority to two-thirds) while the other would disband the Commission on Judicial Discipline and transfer discipline of judges to the state’s Independent Ethics Commission.

In a recent editorial, the New York Times writes that judicial elections have always been “a bad idea” and that special-interest money has made it worse by greatly increasing the influence of corporations, unions and other interests with issues before the courts. The publication cites examples in North Carolina and Arkansas, where out-of-state money is being used to influence Supreme Court elections. “It would be nice to report that states are responding to rising special-interest spending by devising rules for judicial recusal to take campaign contributions into account,” the publication states. “But a new report on state recusal rules by the Center for American Progress suggests otherwise. It seems the best that can be hoped for is that voters will ignore untruthful attack ads when they go to the polls.”

Gov. Bill Haslam, former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Phil Bredesen on Tuesday will help launch a bipartisan  “Vote Yes on 2” campaign in support of Amendment 2 to the state constition. The amendment would provide for initial appointment of judges on the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal and criminal appeals by the governor, with confirmation by the state legislature and retention elections by voters at the next statewide August election and thereafter for eight-year terms. The measure is one of four constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot. The Commercial Appeal has more.

The Oklahoma state House yesterday defeated a proposal to change the composition of the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission with a 65-31 vote. “You’re injecting an extreme amount of partisanship into the process,” House Democratic leader Scott Inman said about the legislation to alter the merit-based process for choosing judges that has operated for nearly half a century. Gavel Grab has more.

Lawmakers Tuesday questioned whether the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission (JPEC) violates the Tennessee Constitution, the Tennessean reports. The House Government Operations Committee heard testimony from several people, including John Jay Hooker, who brought lawsuits against Gov. Bill Haslam, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and House Speaker Beth Harwell last year contesting the constitutionality of the JPEC and retention election statutes. After hearing the testimony, the committee sent the constitutionality question to the Joint Subcommittee of Government Operations, Judiciary and Government, which will meet this summer. Gavel Grab has more.

A feature in this week's Nashville Scene about local judicial elections asks three questions: can a voter really be informed when it comes to judicial elections; why do judicial races involve a party affiliation; and is there an inherent conflict in judges running campaigns?

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey on Friday repeated his support for a November ballot measure that would change the way Supreme Court and appeals court judges in the state are selected, the Kingsport Times News reports. Ramsey encouraged judges and others attending the Tennessee Judicial Conference to get behind the measure, which would give the governor the power to appoint the judges, subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. "It's the best way of doing this," Ramsey, R-Blountville, said of the constitutional amendment, which will be put to voters this fall.