Editorial: Judicial Selection Process Needs Major Revamp

The Herald-Dispatch, November 8, 2004

Now that the ugliest election for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in recent memory is over, a committee of the West Virginia Bar Association will continue with a study of whether and how the state should change the way it chooses members of its highest court.

West Virginia has three levels of justice in which the people making the decisions are chosen in partisan elections: county magistrates, circuit judges and the Supreme Court. In none of the three are the public’s best interests best served by partisan elections.

West Virginians love to quote the Bible, and the Bible quotes Jesus as saying, "You shall know them by their fruits." In this case, the fruits of partisan judicial elections include bitter contests that almost require candidates to promise rulings that favor their contributors. That, in turn, produces decisions that look shady.

The Bar Association plans to send materials out to its members for review. It hopes to have everything wrapped up by spring, said John P. Bailey, the chairman of the committee assigned to review judicial elections.

The Bar Association is considering at least two options. One is nonpartisan elections. The other is some sort of appointment system.

The problem with nonpartisan elections is that groups will know the real political leanings of candidates. The Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO will know which candidates are pro-business or pro-labor, and they will let their members know. That covers up the problem without eliminating it.

An appointment system for all three levels of the judiciary might be best. We hope the Bar Association will give all options the fair and thorough considerations they deserve. After that, we expect the Legislature to do likewise.

And after that, it will be up to the voters. Whatever the solution is, it should be in place before the next Supreme Court election in 2008.