Judicial campaigns

THE ISSUE

A bill that would limit the amount of money individuals and PACs could contribute to judicial campaigns likely won't pass this year. Instead, legislators should consider appointing judges.

Remember the 2006 Alabama Supreme Court election, the one that cost candidates more than $13 million - the most expensive court race in the nation? State Rep. Chris England does. He's introduced a bill in the Legislature that would severely limit how much money individuals and groups could contribute to judicial candidates. The problem is, it has virtually no chance of passage. Besides, it's probably unconstitutional anyway.

England, a Tuscaloosa Democrat whose father, John England Jr., is a former member of the Supreme Court, wants to limit campaign contributions to judicial candidates to a maximum of $1,500 per person or organization during an election campaign. That might sound reasonable on the surface, but there are First Amendment speech issues that underlie the bill that almost certainly would be struck down in court.

There is no argument that Alabama's 2006 chief justice election was an eye popper financially. The next most expensive judicial election that year was held in Texas - a state with much greater population and wealth - where a mere $3.5 million was spent.

So, what does a reform-minded lawmaker, who believes that the perception that money is subverting justice is undermining public confidence in the courts, do to make some changes? We suggest lawmakers look at appointing judges using the so-called Missouri plan.

Appointing judges would eliminate much of the politics and the financial influence perceived to be affecting the judiciary. Here's an overview of how the appointment process would work:

n The state Bar Association would submit a list of names to the governor. The governor would then select a nominee and submit the name to the Legislature for confirmation.

n Those appointed to judgeships would have to stand election periodically. It would be a simple up or down vote - no competitors would be vying for the seat. If the voters don't like the job the judge has done, he or she would be removed from the bench and the nomination process would begin again, as described in the previous paragraph.

Efforts to change the way judges are elected or appointed to the bench are not new in Alabama. Nonpartisan elections and merit appointments have been debated for 40 years, but so far, they have not gained significant political traction. The Web site for Alabama Judicial Selection, ajs.org, contains a history of state reform efforts as well as information about judicial selection in general.