Colorado has the selection and retention of justices/judges well-figured out. Colorado is not alone. Alaska, Utah and Wyoming are a sampling of states with differing political environments than Colorado, having similar judicial selection /retention systems.
In a nutshell, potential judiciary candidates are evaluated by a committee comprised of members with legal expertise and lay persons-at-large that forward a shortlist of qualified candidates to the governor (or state Senate, depending on the state) for placement on the bench. Key to this system, the judge is subject to a “yes/no” retention vote of the people at intervals determined by state law. Voters say “no” and the process starts anew.
Why not elect judges? In Nevada, we elect all justices /judges in nonpartisan elections. On face value, it seems like a good system. Here’s why it is not:
In any given election year in Clark County, Nevada, there can be in excess of 70 judicial candidates, from state Supreme Court down to municipal judges, appearing on the ballot. Quite simply, an overwhelming task for an individual voter to evaluate.
Voting for judges introduces campaigning as well. Many judicial candidates choose to advertise endorsements from prosecutors and police. While politically savvy on the candidates’ part; blindfolded Lady Justice asks a question of these judges.
Should you recuse yourself from any case involving prosecutors and police?
Whether Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Kentanji Brown-Jackson aligns with your opinion of how justice is served, retention elections allow a say of the people. Left or right.
Jeffrey B. Herrick
Henderson, Nevada
