Editorial:
Judges
Nasty
Supreme Court race was good case for nonpartisan elections
The Register-Herald,
November 10, 2004
The messy matchup for Supreme
Court between Democratic Justice Warren McGraw and
Charleston
lawyer Brent Benjamin, the Republican victor, is Exhibit
A in the argument for nonpartisan election of judges. Should
judicial elections be conducted this way? The
answer, obviously, is no.
Trust in the courts begins with confidence in our judges.
No one can seriously contend that this most recent Supreme Court election gives
the ordinary citizen confidence in the court system.
In
West Virginia
, Supreme Court justices - as well as magistrates and
judges - are elected along party lines. That desperately 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.
Thankfully, a State Bar committee will soon proceed with
the hotly debated study of whether
West Virginia
should change the way it selects its judicial branch.
State Bar President Charles Love III had earlier agreed to
have the 16-lawyer panel hold off its review until after the election. The
committee's chairman, John P. Bailey, hopes to schedule its first meeting in
December.
"We will be sending out materials for all of our
people to review," Bailey said late last week. "We would like to wrap
everything up by spring."
The merits of nonpartisan judges are many, as we've
pointed out before. For example, 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."
Like
Alaska
and many other states,
West Virginia
can take a giant step forward by electing justices who
legislate through their judgments, not their political prejudice. And,
hopefully, clean up unseemly election campaigns in the process.