Editorials: Let's Change Judicial Selection

West Virginians certainly deserve a better way of shaping courts



Charleston Daily Mail, November 8, 2004

West Virginians just witnessed a state Supreme Court race marked by millions of dollars' worth of mean-spirited and misleading campaign ads wrapped around germs of truth. The voters of West Virginia sorted it all out admirably, really -- removing one of the worst pre-committed partisans from the bench and sending in a lawyer who promised to interpret the law fairly. But it was an ugly campaign. There must be a better way.

West Virginia is one of the few states that selects justices in partisan elections. It's time to look at other options.

Under the current system, people who make money on the judicial system have been funding the campaigns of would-be justices, hoping to shape the court. Three of the state's current justices are labor-friendly, plaintiff-friendly and claimant friendly. The tilt of the court was obvious to the business community. It has cost the state investors, insurers and medical practitioners.

Businesses and the medical community funded a multimillion-dollar campaign to elect their guy, and his choices on the court will now be closely examined for evidence of tilt toward his backers.

It's all very dissatisfying.

Charlie Love, president of the state Bar, has appointed 20 people to a judicial review committee to recommend a better way to select members of the judiciary. "It's the partisanship that's the real issue," he said. "Judges are not supposed to have a constituency. They're supposed to be impartial, supposed to make decision based on the law, not who is in front of them."

That will be difficult to deliver whatever the method of selection.

Having people seek judicial office independent of party labels might help, but special interests would continue to try to shape the philosophy of the court. There is no apolitical process.

Letting the governor appoint justices, as the president does on the national level, is another possibility. People know who gubernatorial candidates are allied with when they vote, so they have some idea of what kind of judges he or she would appoint.

Some states temper this method of judicial selection by holding retention elections, in which voters may keep or throw out an appointee after they have observed him for a while.

The committee has a lot of ideas to consider. Whatever it recommends might have to make it through the Legislature to a constitutional amendment for the ultimate controlling legal authority, the voters.

This process won't be easy, but it's very much in West Virginians ' best interests that it has begun.