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?

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.

You think appointed people should redistrict. Appointed people should choose judges.

Here I am thinking it’s a good thing that the elected officials make the decision and not some panel that no voter has a say about.

Yes, I read what you write.

Do you read what I write?

I think that, before such a proposal is even floated, we would all need to see some figures to see if the proposal is a solution in search of a problem.

Vivian, you come after me when I say “Here I am thinking it’s a good thing that the elected officials make the decision and not some panel that no voter has a say about.”

You say I’m jumping to conclusions, and then post that you’d rather have appointed people picking the panel.

Seems I was safe in the jump.

Brian – as for changes, let’s start with the Citizens Advisory Panel, which is what prompted me to write this post in the first place (duh!). Why can’t that panel be selected by, say, the judges already in place. (Not a novel idea, BTW. I have served on a couple of such panels.)

Let me ask this: who would make the recommendation if Norfolk had no representatives who were members of the majority party? If the answer is still the Norfolk members of the House, then I say why not include everybody in the process to start with?

Again, it comes back to doing the people’s business.

Of course, the dispute here is that I don’t concede that Rerras was wrong. And I am highly suspect of the wrongdoers suddenly “getting religon” on a topic about which they remained scrupulously silent when they were perpetrating the “wrong.”

You think appointed people should redistrict. Appointed people should choose judges.

Here I am thinking it’s a good thing that the elected officials make the decision and not some panel that no voter has a say about.

Thanks for convincing me how bad of an idea democracy is.

Actually, one significant change that has occurred is that local “non-partisan” bar associations are not permitted virtual carte blanche in the judicial nominating process. GOP legislators have frequently looked beyond those recommendations to pick well-qualified candidates to break the virtual stranglehold that Dems have had on the Virginia bench for decades.

Of course, local bar associations are just about as “non-partisan” as I am.

The only “scandal” here is that the process is now “partisan” in a way that Dems don’t like. And I suspect that it’s not nearly so “partisan” as it was when Dems were in control of the legislature.

I hate to say the Democrats started it, but they did. So going back to them is going to make it better?

No, we need to make changes in the system. How to go about it is a question. Referendum?