Editorial: Ruling another blow to partisan election of judges
Lori Wolfe/The Herald-Dispatch
Justice Brent Benjamin and other members of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals hear arguments in four cases on Sept. 18, 2007, at Marshall University’s Joan C. Edwards Playhouse.
June 10, 2009 @ 07:30 PM
2009/The Herald-Dispatch
The Herald-Dispatch
The U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that state Supreme Court Justice Brett Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a Massey Energy case, putting the state's judicial ethics issues in the national spotlight again.
The ruling points out the need for clearer guidelines on when justices should step aside in a case, but it also adds fuel to the argument that West Virginia should find a better way to select judges.
In 2004, Massey's chief executive spent more than $3 million on a campaign in support of Benjamin. After his election, Benjamin was a part of a 3-2 decision to overturn a multi-million dollar verdict against Massey, despite requests that he should step aside.
The other party in the case, Harman Mining Co., took the case to the Supreme Court. This week, the high court voted 5-4 that Benjamin's involvement created some appearance of bias.
"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause," Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.
But Benjamin's situation is just one example of how politically charged the West Virginia Supreme Court has been through the years. The court also has been criticized for too much activism and an anti-business bent that discouraged economic growth.
In the 2008 race for two seats on the West Virginia Supreme Court, candidates again spent millions on the campaign, with much of the funds coming from PACs and attorneys.
In a small state, it is only a matter of time before some of those contributors come before the court. Frankly, if justices recused themselves every time there was even the appearance of a conflict, they would struggle to get anything done.
The better path is to switch to a selection method that takes at least some of the big money, if not the politics, out of the selection process. Although partisan elections were a popular way to chose judges in the early days of our democracy, today's increasingly expensive, television-driven campaigns have left many feeling that is really the worst way to select judges.
Concern has risen across the country as fundraising for state high-court elections has doubled over the last decade. Today, West Virginia is among only eight states that select Supreme Court judges in partisan elections.
Thirteen states now use non-partisan elections, but would that reduce fundraising?
Three states allow the governor to make the decision, and two states let the legislature pick the justices. Those approaches might cut down on the big money, but not the politics.
In 24 states, high-court judges are appointed by the governor with the assistance of a judicial nominating committee. Gov. Joe Manchin has commissioned a new review of the court system, and we hope that group will give some consideration to these merit selection methods.