Editorial:  Judges

W.Va. Needs To Join 44 Other States And Have Nonpartisan Elections

The Register-Herald, Sept. 12, 2004

"What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?" New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joked to a group of attorneys recently. "The good lawyer knows the law; the great lawyer knows the judge."

Trust in the courts begins with confidence in our judges. In West Virginia , Supreme Court justices are elected along party lines. That needs changed. The vagaries of judicial campaigns, including the need to raise campaign funds, and the irrelevance of party affiliation in selecting good judges make judicial elections problematic.

Not only the lawyers, but the general public must be convinced that justice will be dispensed without any loyalty to party politics.

Speaking to a medical group last week at The Greenbrier, state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Albright stretched long and hard in defense of his position against nonpartisan judges.

Albright contends a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has made nonpartisan judicial elections meaningless.

"From my perspective, the most serious problem with judicial selection is that the Supreme Court has effectively prevented West Virginia and each of the other 49 states from mandating appropriate conduct in judicial candidates," Albright said.

Poppycock.

The key to Albright's remarks was this phrase: "If you read this case as broadly as I do ..."

Trouble is, not too many folks read the case Albright cited "as broadly" as he does. After all, West Virginia is one of only six states that has partisan Supreme Court elections; 44 states must not consider the process "meaningless."

The merits of nonpartisan judges are many. In reviewing its state's history of judicial selection, The Anchorage Press wrote, "In 1955, the 55 delegates to Alaska 's Constitutional Convention decided judges should not hold allegiances to the powerful politicians of the day. Their decision to appoint judges who are not beholden to any politician or political party has irritated politicians ever since.

"Our instincts tell us that if our system irritates politicians, we probably should not change it."

The newspaper went on to say that "the system crafted by our constitution's framers has given Alaska one of the most qualified and least politically motivated judiciaries in the country. ... This plan rewards merit over political affiliation in a branch of government where political bias must take a back seat to impartiality. ... No more judges who decide a case before it is heard, based on previously learned political ideology, rather than after it is heard and based upon the law and facts."

The overwhelming majority of West Virginians - 72 percent, according to a 2002 poll - realize this. Our state can take a giant step forward by electing justices who legislate through their judgments, not their political prejudice.