Maryland Workgroup Recommends Changes to Judicial Selection Process

Overview

A Maryland legislative workgroup has released its findings on the state's judicial selection process in 63-page report, recommending several key changes to improve transparency, diversity, and public trust in the judiciary.

The Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections, established by the Legislative Committee of the Judicial Council, conducted a comprehensive review of Maryland's current system and best practices nationwide. Their recommendations include:

1. Maintaining gubernatorial appointment of judges, but with enhanced vetting processes.

2. Reforming Judicial Nominating Commissions to ensure diversity and transparency in the selection of judicial candidates.

3. Eliminating contested elections for Circuit Court judges in favor of retention elections, similar to the system used for Appellate Court judges.

4. Reducing Circuit Court judge terms from 15 to 10 years, aligning with other courts in the state.

5. Implementing a standardized code of conduct for Judicial Nominating Commission members.

6. Increasing public education and outreach about the judicial selection process and retention elections.

The workgroup emphasized the importance of selecting highly qualified, impartial judges who reflect the diversity of Maryland's population. They noted that while the current system has improved diversity on the bench, there is still room for improvement, particularly in smaller jurisdictions.

The report also highlighted concerns about the impact of contested elections on judicial independence and the potential influence of campaign contributions on the judiciary.

While most recommendations were supported by a majority of workgroup members, some disagreement remained over the elimination of contested elections for Circuit Court judges. Proponents argue that retention elections would preserve judicial independence, while opponents believe contested elections provide necessary accountability to voters.

Contested Elections

The Maryland Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections has recommended eliminating contested elections for Circuit Court judges, a practice that has been in place for decades. Here's what you need to know:

What are contested judicial elections?

In Maryland, after initial appointment by the Governor, Circuit Court judges must run in contested elections to retain their seats. These elections allow any qualified lawyer to run against sitting judges, potentially unseating them.

Problems identified by the workgroup:

1. Bypassing vetting: Challengers can run without undergoing the rigorous vetting process required for appointed judges. Whilst challengers are often experienced legal professionals, there are officially no requirements to become a Circuit Court judge as a candidate in a contested election.

2. Ethical constraints: Sitting judges are bound by strict ethical rules during campaigns, while challengers are not held to the same standards. Sitting judges are often limited in what they can say because of these ethical rules. Challengers don’t face those same restrictions and are allowed to make shady or unfair promises to constituents.

3. Campaign financing: Judges must raise funds, often from lawyers who may appear before them, raising concerns about impartiality.

4. Safety concerns: Campaigning can put judges at risk, forcing them to interact with potentially disgruntled litigants.

5. Politicization of the judiciary: The need to campaign and make promises can compromise judicial independence.

6. Lack of public understanding: Voters often lack sufficient information about judicial qualifications and performance.

Why the workgroup wants to eliminate contested elections:

The workgroup argues that replacing contested elections with retention elections would:

1. Ensure all judges have undergone thorough vetting.

2. Preserve judicial independence by reducing political pressures.

3. Minimize the need for campaign fundraising, enhancing the appearance of impartiality.

4. Improve judicial safety by reducing direct campaigning.

5. Allow for more informed voter decisions through improved public education efforts.

While some members argue that contested elections provide necessary accountability, the majority of the workgroup believes that a system of gubernatorial appointment, Senate confirmation, and retention elections would better serve Maryland's judiciary and its citizens.

This proposed change would align Circuit Court judicial selections with the process already in place for Maryland's Appellate Courts, creating a more consistent and thoroughly vetted judiciary across the state.

The workgroup's findings will now be considered by the Maryland General Assembly for potential legislative action.