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.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
once again the point is made state GOP is out of controll, back to basics 101 give power back to the people, let us all give the state GOP a wake up call this election year, can someone please send me contact information on who is running on the dem. side for state senate norfolk,VA. i would like to help. jackhstiles@msn.com
Jack,
It’s not just Republicans. This is an issue of majority power…even if the Libertarians or the Greens were in control, this would still be an issue.
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?
And you Democrats (like Mason?) are now interested in “changes” because?
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.
Two wrongs never make a right.
Isn’t it funny how many changes Democrats want to make to a system they thought was just fine when they were in charge.
I’ll say again: two wrongs don’t make a right. The Democrats were wrong and now the Republicans are. So who is going to have the guts to just do the right thing?
It’s amazing that your think an appointed person makes a better choice than someone the people elect would.
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.
Hmm – jumping to conclusions again, Brian? Where did I say anything about an appointed person making the decision over an elected one? You really love to make leaps – hope you look first.
Well, what “changes” are you advocating?
You’re right, Vivian; two wrongs don’t make a right. But isn’t it funny how the perpetrators/initiators of the wrongs are the ones who have now discovered that they were wrong? Joe Kennedy, who as the first SEC Chairman promptly made illegal the tactics he used to get rich, comes to mind.
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.”
I certainly hope that you are not referring to me, James, with your broad generalizations, since I was neither one of the perpetrators nor the initiators of the earlier wrongs. And I certainly did not benefit from that, either.
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.
How about making it unethical, for lawyers at least, to accept campaign contributions from judicial nominees, or for judicial nominees to make such contributions, within two years of an appointment? If there has already been such a contribution, require that it be returned, contributed to the General Fund, or contributed to a charity. Otherwise, disqualify from appointment the attorneys who have made these contributions. It’s either a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, and can be regulated by the Virginia State Bar.
VAB…I’d be fine with that.
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.
Um, Brian – where did I say the Citizens Advisory Panel was going to pick the judges?
I guess my problem with that, VAB, is the First Amendment implications of such a rule. That having been said, I’ve been told — don’t know from too much experience — that lawyers are notoriously cheap. I can say with assurance that the two friends that I have who are Circuit Court judges made no such contributions.
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.