Today’s Virginian-Pilot has a front page, above the fold article on the process of selecting judges in Virginia and, in particular, Norfolk. In the wake of last week’s revelation of Nick Rerras’ interview tactics, the article once again points out that the majority party makes the choice and that since Norfolk has a single member of the majority party, the choice ultimately rests in one person’s hands. In addition, the article tries to make a connection between political contributions and judgeships.
What caught my eye was a single sentence (my emphasis):
Rerras has sought input from professionals and a Citizens Judiciary Advisory Panel, whose members he picked himself.
Rerras gets to pick the members of the citizens panel? Any semblance of non-political activity goes out of the window when the legislator gets to pick his own panel. The article confirms my suspiscions:
[Norfolk lawyer and head of the Citizens Advisory Panel John] Padgett said Rerras listens to the recommendations made by the citizens panel.
“Every candidate selected since the process started has been in the highest group recommended by the committee,” Padgett said. “Based on the results to date, his choice and the committee’s recommendations have been aligned.”
Well, duh. I wouldn’t expect anything different. The Citizens Advisory Panel is just window dressing, making it appear that ordinary citizens have had some input into the selection process. But when the legislator gets to pick the panel, the likelihood of getting anything other than rubber stamps is virtually nil.
The article quotes my neighbor, who sums up my thoughts:
W.T. Mason Jr., head of the South Hampton Roads Bar Association, said that years ago, when the Democrats still held power, Republicans pushed for changes.
Once the GOP gained control of the legislature, he said, “they were no longer interested in any changes. I don’t know how to convince them other than exposing the system and its flaws and inviting public discussion,” Mason said.
Yeah. When are our elected officials going to stop playing “gotcha” and get about doing the people’s business? The criteria should be to select the best qualified, not the best qualified Republican or the best qualified Democrat.
And we wonder why people don’t want to participate in the process.
I didn’t say you said the Citizens Advisory Panel would pick the judges. I said you’d have appointed people picking the panel.
Do you read what I write?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 1:55 pmBrian – you’re just trying to back out of your earlier statement. You said:
Yes, I read what you write.
Posted by vjp | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 3:15 pmSo, if the elected official still picks the judge, what does the panel do?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 6:20 pmLike the Bar Association, the citizen Panel would review the applicants and rank them. They serve in an advisory capacity, just like the Bar Associations do, but provide a different perspective on the candidates.
I believe that is the premise behind the current CAP. The problem is that when the elected chooses the members of the CAP, you have the appearance of politics being involved. By allowing the sitting judges to choose the panel, at least the appearance would be removed. And like other panels that the judges select (at least the ones I’ve served on), the membership list should be public. The secrecy surrounding the current CAP needs to be removed.
Posted by vjp | Tuesday, February 13, 2007, 7:14 pmWhy does everyone get hung up on “appearances?”
Elected officials make the decision. What you call “politics being involved” I call “people accountable to voters making decisions.”
If you want to worry about appearances, how about the appearance that those the voters select being rubber stamps for appointed people?
Posted by Brian Kirwin | Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 5:46 amOne word: ethics Any code of ethics I’ve ever seen references avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 8:27 am