Process for picking judges gives turkeys, crooks chance

I doubt I'm alone, but the toughest votes I'll cast Tuesday will be in the judicial races.

After reading the Las Vegas Review-Journal's special section on the primary election and consulting co-workers and attorneys, in some races, I am still undecided. Undecided is a code word for clueless.

I just don't have enough information and don't want to vote for a loon. I've done it before out of ignorance, but ignorance is no excuse.

Even the "Judging the Judges" series isn't enough help because the open seats don't have any incumbents. They have attracted a lot of contenders who are mostly unknown to me.

My newspaper is unwavering in the principle that judges should be elected. But I'm on the other side. I'd prefer a merit-selection system in which judges are appointed, but voters retain the right to throw out any bums. Sure some of the bums get entrenched and are hard to toss, but rejecting a judge is still an option under merit selection.

Attorney friends have helped, but as I ponder the 11 contested races on my ballot, I'm still undecided on four.

When I ran the names by one attorney/friend, he didn't know any of the attorneys mentioned.

If the attorneys don't know these people, who does?

After years of conviction that electing judges is the right way, this attorney has come around to my thinking that merit selection is best.

While it's not perfect and both systems have flaws, he said with merit selection "there are fewer turkeys and fewer crooks on the bench."

Oh, there are still turkeys and crooks who make it under merit selection, but their numbers are smaller. That's progress.

In a recent R-J poll, 59 percent of voters rejected the merit system. Wonder whether those same folks have any doubts about their judicial votes today?

I've been severely chastised by other friends for wanting to give up my right to elect a judge. But after I closely watched the merit-selection process used to choose two Las Vegas justices of the peace, I am much more confident in the weeding out process by a committee of lawyers, judges and lay people.

Those candidates went through vigorous and intense scrutiny, much more so than voters give them.

Attorneys who work on a daily basis with judges overwhelmingly support merit selection. Of the attorneys who participated in "Judging the Judges," 68 percent favored the merit system.

Yes, political cronies get in. Yes, some good people don't make it through merit selection.

But if you've already voted or if you're voting Tuesday, ask yourself whether you are confident about your judicial selections, especially in Family Court, where those very personal decisions of child custody and divorce make people crazy. I know, I hear from them all the time.

In November, state Senate Joint Resolution 2 will be on the ballot, and if passed, would be the first step toward creating a merit-selection system in Nevada. A committee would review the candidates and forward names for the governor to choose from.

Some 23 states choose judges this way.

If you're confident in the judicial candidates you are voting for, go ahead and reject merit selection.

But if you fear you might have voted for another Elizabeth Halverson, consider voting for merit selection.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor advocates merit selection.

"Fewer turkeys and fewer crooks on the bench" is probably not the slogan she would choose to gain support; she's too dignified for that. But if she wants it, it's hers. Call it my gift to the cause because the originator doesn't want it attributed to him.

Meanwhile, if you can't make a rational selection in a given race, don't guess. Leave it blank.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702- 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.