The Herald-Dispatch, July 28, 2004

West Virginia’s Supreme Court has received quite a bit of attention this year -- and for good reason.

Many blame the court’s pattern of decisions on helping to create an "anti-business" climate in a state that is rarely successful in attracting new jobs and struggling to hold onto the little business it has. Others argue that the court is simply standing up for the little guy in his battle against greedy corporations.

The debate was the focus of incumbent Justice Warren McGraw’s Democratic primary race against Judge Jim Row, and the issue is expected to carry over into McGraw’s fall race against Republican Brett Benjamin.

But should partisan politics play such an important role in selecting judges, especially Supreme Court justices -- the judges of "last resort?"

The State Bar has appointed a committee to take a look at that issue, despite the objections of two Supreme Court members, Joseph Albright and Larry Starcher. We applaud the bar’s decision to move ahead with the study. The justices’ objections are self-serving at best.

Most of us would agree that we don’t want politics to influence our justice system, although the debate over how to protect our courts from partisan influence is as old as the nation itself.

States have moved from judges selected by the king to popular election to merit selection over the course of our history, according to an interesting study by the nonprofit American Judicature Society. Today, no two states have exactly the same approach.

But nonpartisan elections and merit selection have become the most commonly used methods of choosing judges.

West Virginia and only seven other states -- Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas -- chose their appellate courts in partisan elections, according to the AJS study. Thirteen other states elect appellate judges in nonpartisan elections, and 23 states use some form of merit selection. Four use gubernatorial appointment, and two legislative appointment.

Clearly none completely remove politics from the equation. Even with merit selection, the question becomes who chooses the panel that chooses the judges.

But certainly West Virginia’s system is overdue for a review. When the public develops a perception that our courts have an agenda or bias, confidence in the decisions handed out erodes quickly. For some in West Virginia, that has already occurred.

The State Bar committee is not expected to begin its study until after the General Election, but when the work begins, we challenge that group to do a thorough review and recommend reforms that will rebuild citizens’ confidence in our courts.