Independent Commission on Judicial Reform Issues Report, Post-Caperton

Yes, here we are again talking about 'judicial appointments', and the debate rages on. We've posted on this topic several times this year. However, in the long wake of Caperton, West Virginia has issued a Report regarding judicial reform from their Independent Commission on Judicial Reform ("the Report"). Most significantly, the Report did not recommend an end to the election of judges. It did, however, suggest several changes to the current system in order to provide more transperancy & more integrity to the system.

It should be noted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is on the panel authoring the report. We know, of course, that she is a huge proponent of doing away with judicial elections. So, if she is on a panel that recommends the NOT do away with judicial elections, maybe, just maybe, she has changed her mind. Should we?

West Virginia has a similar system to Nevada, election of judges with an appointment for vacancies by the Governor. While there are some minor differences, the basic structure is consistent with our state. This Report helps to provide some much needed advice to West Virginia and vicariously to Nevada in considering whether to amend the our state constitution which would do away with judicial elections and provide for exclusively 'judicial appointment'. I am against the amendment the the state constitution, though I am in favor of many changes to the current system. Below is a list of some of the suggested changes that the 151-page Report suggests for West Virginia. You should note that Nevada, either already has these changes, or I have suggested similar ones that have not been made. Yes, I think I'm a genius.

The Report suggests*:

• the state study the feasibility of a creating a business court;
• finding more uniformity and openness in how governors fill judicial vacancies;
• a new level of court, called a deflective court, that is basically a mid-level appeals court;
• filing the 'deflective court' with appointed judges, where higher and lower level judges are elected;
• the Legislature should define the makeup of an advisory panel to be used by the governor when filling a judicial vacancy;
• a defined evaluation process for judicial performance to assist voters (though Nevada judicial study has made a recommendation for such evaluations);
• a public financing pilot program to curb campaign spending in judicial races (with a pilot of the 2 Supreme Court seats set for 2012); and
  
• making the entire judicial process more open to the public, among other suggestions. (LNL)
  

*notably the commission did not provide any suggestions on radical changes for the current appointment process, surprising given Justice O'Connor's attendance on the Commission.

You'll note that the suggestions I've highlighted in RED have already been made by us here at Legally UnBound, relevant to Nevada, and that the suggestions highlighted in BLUE are already in existence in Nevada. So, if we move more toward transparency, judicial evaluation for public education/accountability, curb campaign finance structures, generate an appeals court, and provide for ethical accountability for the judges (with regard to judicial campaign contributions), we will be solving the majority of the problems, even in the eyes of Justice O'Connor. So, why do we need a constitutional amendment . . . we don't.

If there is any question that we could simply toughen the rules that govern our judges, just ask Michigan, who is obviously quicker to act than Nevada.

See HERE for an update on CAPERTON v. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC., as of 11-17-09
.