Sandra Day O’Connor makes case for appointing judges

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor shrugged as she recalled a few of the many judicial malaprops that occurred in Arizona back in the good old, bad old days.

You know, back when Arizonans still elected judges instead of having them appointed through a vetted, public judicial selection process.

There was one black-robed good old boy for whom impartiality in a divorce proceeding was as foreign a concept as the definition of chauvinism. When it was time for the divorcing wife to be heard, he called out, "'Well, OK, bring the little heifer in,' " O'Connor told the Review-Journal editorial board Tuesday. "That was the way it worked in Arizona. We had another member of the bench who would campaign with a one-man band down the street. And we had a lot of examples of strange things. We had one judge who brought marijuana in from Mexico. These are things that one doesn't like to see in one's judges."

America's first female Supreme Court justice was born in El Paso, Texas, but gained much of her legal experience in Arizona, where she served as a Superior Court and Arizona Court of Appeals judge before being nominated for the nation's high court in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. O'Connor has long advocated judicial merit selection and review. She serves as the honorary chairwoman of Nevada's "Yes on Question 1," which seeks voter approval for a ballot measure that would facilitate a sea change in the way the state chooses its judges.

O'Connor was accompanied by retired Nevada Supreme Court Justice Bill Maupin, who serves as chairman of the group, which boasts of wide-ranging support as varied as the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada AFL-CIO.

Trouble is, Nevadans aren't so sure about giving up their right to vote for the judges of their choosing -- even if they know little more about them than their 30-second sound bites and their smiling faces on roadside signs. In July, a statewide Review-Journal-sponsored survey conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research found 54 percent opposed the change. Just 27 percent approved of the plan, in which the governor would ultimately make the final selection from several qualified applicants, who then would be subject to retention votes.

O'Connor said Arizona's merit selection system, which began in the mid-1970s, not only has improved the quality of judicial cloth, but it also has led to increased diversity as more women and minorities have been given the opportunity to serve.

"In the intervening years we've been able to watch Arizona's system at work and see what we have today, and believe me it is so much better," O'Connor said.

Not perfect, but much improved.

After listening to O'Connor, Maupin, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor and others plead their case for professional judicial selection conducted in public, I began to think it was a good idea despite my skepticism that political machinations will ever be fully separated from the Nevada court system.

Ironically, the high-minded Yes on Question 1 group suffers from a lack of the down-home politicking, fund-raising and image-crafting that it's attempting to eliminate from the judicial system. Although O'Connor said the Arizona movement benefited greatly from making its case to the state's newspapers and television stations, Tuesday's meeting comes just weeks before the November election. There isn't much time to change the minds of stubborn Nevada voters.

Although public affairs specialist Greg Ferraro said there will be some television spots, it doesn't sound like we're going to see the airwaves full of officials endorsing a plan that a majority of the public -- informed or not -- has no interest in getting behind.

It will take more than a one-man band to turn Nevada's merit selection question into a parade.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.