Several states have recently announced their support for merit selection over judicial election, according to the newsletter of the Justice at Stake Campaign. Gavel Grab reports that 61 percent of voters in Kansas oppose rewriting the state’s constitution to change the merit selection process for choosing Kansas Supreme Court justices to judicial elections. Numerous newspaper editorial boards have called for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to do away with its judicial election system. A Beloit Daily News editorial says, “Political manipulation has infected Wisconsin’s system of justice. That is intolerable.” The Pennsylvania legislature recently introduced a bill to end judicial election in the Supreme Court in the wake of corruption charges surrounding suspended justice Joan Orie Melvin.

In his State of the State speech last night, Governor Bill Haslam briefly addressed the issue of judicial selection, calling on lawmakers to “preserve the current process until the people have a chance to vote in 2014.” He also warned against making “changes in the meantime,” which would do nothing “but confuse the situation further.” Haslam reiterated his opposition to partisan, contested elections and praised the judicial selection commission for its work. “My experience has been that the…commission has done its job in providing quality candidates. So for me this issue isn't about fixing something that isn't working, but instead, it is about hearing legitimate concerns and providing clarity.” That clarity, he said, could be accomplished through the constitutional amendment process set in motion last session. Read more from the speech.

The Kansas Senate plans to vote next week on a proposed constitutional amendment to end the state’s merit-based system for selecting Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court judges, according to Gavelgrab.com and the election debate is heating up in Pennsylvania. Lawmakers in that state have previously tried and failed to amend the state’s system of judicial elections. Now, with suspended Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin facing trial for corruption charges, legislators are again proposing to stop electing judges.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund released its third report in a series focusing on different policies intended to mitigate the influence of corporate campaign cash in judicial elections and improve access to justice. The nonpartisan education and advocacy organization talks about the benefit of judicial merit selection and retention elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in a lawsuit over the Iowa Judicial Nominating Commission's makeup. The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in 2010, challenging sections of the Iowa Constitution and state code. They argued that the system excludes Iowa voters from participation in the election of the elected attorney members of the state Judicial Nominating Commission; that it denies voters the right to equal participation in the selection of state Supreme Court justices; and that it denies voters the right to vote for the elected attorney members of the commission. The judicial commission is given the power to select the nominees for vacant positions on both the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The governor then chooses one of the commission's three nominees. Learn more from LegalNewsLine.com

The resolution that would amend the constitution and replace the current Tennessee Plan for merit selection and retention elections took a giant step today when the House concurred on SJR 710, forwarding it to the next session of the General Assembly. While judges appointed under the new plan would face retention elections, they would do so only after being nominated by the governor and after legislative confirmation.

The legislature will apparently leave town without specifying the way that the August 2014 election of judges will be conducted — a move that TBA President Danny Van Horn termed “irresponsible.” Watch for more details of the last few days of the 107th General Assembly in future editions of TBA Today.

Legislation to abolish the Tennessee Plan and replace it with contested, partisan elections for all appellate judges in 2014 failed in what is expected to be the last meeting of the House Judiciary Committee late today. The vote was 7-7 on HB 173 by Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin.

First thing this morning, the Senate held the first reading on two resolutions that cleared the Senate Finance Committee as reported in TBA Today yesterday. Early voting on those resolutions though is not considered to be indicative of the final outcome. SJR 183 by Mark Norris, R-Memphis, permits the General Assembly to adopt a merit appointment system with retention elections. SJR 710 by Brian Kelsey, R-Collierville, forbids merit selection and provides for gubernatorial appointment and legislative confirmation before retention elections.

At midday, the House Finance Subcommittee recommended to the full committee adoption of HJR 830 by Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, as amended. This bill is considered the analog to Norris' SJR 183. The amendment requires merit-based selection "with the concurrence of the legislature” followed by retention elections. The analog to SJR 710, which is also sponsored by Rep. Lundberg was put over for consideration in the subcommittee until next week.

What does it all mean? It is always hazardous to predict legislative matters, particularly in the fluid, chaotic state of affairs at the end of a legislative session. However it does appear that some of the options for advocates of changing our system are narrowing, as are the options for renewing the current plan. Stay tuned for further developments.