According to a new report, the cost of judicial campaigns has soared in recent years. Since 2000, “The New Politics of Judicial Elections” series has tracked the increased politicization and escalating spending in state judicial campaigns, as well as the growing role of special interest money. The 2011-2012 report analyzes the prominent role of special interest money in state Supreme Court elections specifically and documents how the “boundaries that keep money and political pressure from interfering with the rule of law have become increasingly blurred.”

Following a complete review of the TBA policy on judicial selection, the TBA Board of Governors on Oct. 12 reaffirmed its commitment to merit selection to fill judicial vacancies and voted to support the Constitutional amendment, which provides for gubernatorial appointment, legislative confirmation and retention elections for judges. The Board did so because of assurances that Governor Bill Haslam would include merit in the process via an Executive Order, if the amendment is adopted. The amendment will be on the ballot in the state’s November 2014 general election.

The TBA leadership has worked closely with Governor Haslam’s Administration in the weeks prior to the release of the Governor’s executive order of Oct. 17, which, when viewed in conjunction with the notice and application instructions, sets in place a commission and protocol for judicial appointments very much like the former Judicial Nominating Commission.

TBA President Cindy Wyrick, in announcing the TBA’s support for the constitutional amendment, said “the TBA will support the constitutional amendment because we have been assured that the Governor will implement a merit selection process to appoint qualified judges. We applaud Governor Haslam for his recent executive order, which demonstrates his continuing commitment to filling vacancies with qualified judges through use of a merit selection process.”

TBA support for merit selection and retention elections goes back almost 50 years. This year’s policy review began with discussions and votes in the association's Governmental Affairs committee and its policy making House of Delegates. Final approval came as the Board met for its quarterly meeting.

“The advantage to the constitutional amendment, from our perspective, is that it puts retention elections squarely in the constitution,“ said Wyrick. The TBA maintains that retention elections, under current law, are constitutional as decided by three separate courts. “The combination of merit selection and retention elections is the best way to bring fairness, impartiality, stability, consistency, and clarity to our legal system. These are the values we believe in,” said Wyrick.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner yesterday spoke in favor of judicial merit selection during a “fireside chat” with First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya at Roger Williams University School of Law, the Providence Journal reports. O'Connor opposes election of judges, and said states are better off with appointed judges because merit-selection appointment leads to higher quality judges, and keeps political money and advertising out of it.

An updated special edition of Gavel to Gavel again reviews the eight states now confirmed to have 2014 ballot items substantially affecting the courts. The publication notes that Tennessee’s case is interesting in that there is no back up system in place in case the quasi-federal system SJR 2 is rejected by voters and there is no longer merit selection in place.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willet, a successful vote-getter who knows how to win judicial elections, says he finds these contests “toxic to the idea of an impartial, independent judiciary,” Gavel Grab reports. The judge disclosed his desire to bid judicial elections farewell, stating, “I’d be shocked if people didn’t look askance at such a flawed system. I do, too, having had close-up experience spanning several contested statewide races. Nothing would please me, or my wife, more than if my last election were my last election, and between now and 2018, Texans would opt for a smarter system. Hopeful? Yep. Optimistic? Nope.”

Former Republican U.S. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker and former federal appeals court Judge Deanell Reece Tacha, a Republican appointee, are speaking out in support of merit selection in their home state of Kansas. The pair authored an opinion piece published in the Kans Hays Daily News arguing that Kansas “should not abandon” a merit-based process for choosing top judges. The Republican-controlled Kansas legislature earlier this year dismantled that state's nonpartisan judicial screening commission. “One has only to look at events around the world right now to know that one of the cornerstones of the rule of law upon which public trust depends is the open and transparent selection of judges who will model unbiased, impartial, ethical, and informed decision making,” Baker and Tacha write. Gavel Grab has the story. 

Bar leaders from across the country learned about challenges to judicial merit selection and retention in Tennessee and other states at a presentation today during the National Conference of Bar President's annual meeting in San Francisco. TBA Executive Director Allan Ramsaur moderated the session, which featured TBA Immediate Past President Jacqueline Dixon, along with Iowa State Bar Immediate Past President Cynthia Moser and Gwynne Young, immediate past president of the Florida Bar. While much of the debate to date in Tennessee has taken place in the legislature, both Florida and Iowa were recently involved in extensive public campaigns leading up to elections.

Writing in The Tennessean over the weekend, crime victims advocate Verna Wyatt says the state’s system for nominating and appointing judges is the best system for selecting wise judges. Wyatt, a citizen member of the Judicial Nominating Commission, used the column to explain the important work done by commissioners, highlight the dedication of those who serve on the panel and expound on the role voters play in the process. Wyatt is executive director of Tennessee Voices For Victims. Read her opinion piece here.

Former Tennessee Gov. Winfield Dunn, who in 1971 signed a bill into law that created the current system for selecting appeals court judges, now says enacting the bill was a mistake. “At the time I signed it I felt constrained by many other issues,” Dunn said. “I regret signing the retention election bill.” Dunn’s comments came after a special state Supreme Court hearing on the latest challenge to the state’s judicial nomination and retention system by John Jay Hooker. Representing the state at the hearing, attorney Janet Kleinfelter said it was not the first time, but it should be the last time, the state defends the way appeals judges are elected. Pointing out that the system has been upheld twice on appeal, she argued "this judicial system is entitled to finality.” The Tennessean has more.

In a guest column in the Memphis Commercial Appeal today, TBA President Cindy Wyrick defends the state’s judicial selection system and corrects several mischaracterization made in a recent opinion piece from Washington, D.C., lawyer Stephen A. Vaden. Wyrick writes that the current system “provides a balance of accountability to the citizens and insulation from undue political influence and pressure, which are both very important to the selection of a well-qualified and diverse bench.” She also expresses opposition to a constitutional amendment that voters will consider in 2014. “If the … amendment … is adopted, a single individual — the governor — will be free to select whomever he wishes for the bench, without the input of anyone. The governor’s choice would then be subject to confirmation by the members of both houses of the General Assembly, which would certainly politicize the process.” Wyrick concludes by calling on readers to “contact their legislators and ask them to retain our merit selection system.”