Hochul must drop proposed judicial change
Janet Protasiewicz was the winner in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election Tuesday, a race that shows the danger of politicizing the selection of judges. Credit: AP/Mike De Sisti
More than $37 million was spent in a Wisconsin election Tuesday for a judge on the state's top court, a race described as possibly the most consequential in 2023. The liberal candidate won and is likely to tip court rulings on abortion rights and the drawing of electoral maps. The winning side cheered that it can now reverse 15 years of decisions of a right-wing court. But everyone loses when we abandon the concept that the judicial branch should be a neutral arbiter.
New York saw this danger more than four decades ago and devised a widely hailed appointive system for the Court of Appeals with detailed rules to squeeze as much political sway as possible out of the process. However, the current four-month debacle of trying to select a new chief judge is a shameful step backward, turning tawdry our once highly regarded process.
Controlling Democrats are in the thrall of far-left activists who seek a judge to guarantee desired policy outcomes. Embarrassed last year when the seven-member court threw out their blatantly gerrymandered maps, they are seeking revenge. Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's resignation left the court split between judges who want to drive policy and those who prefer to apply the law to the specific facts of each case. This unprecedented results-oriented analysis led the State Senate to reject Gov. Kathy Hochul’s excellent first pick, Appellate Division presiding justice Hector LaSalle.
Unfortunately, Hochul's response was an ill-advised effort to amend the process of the independent Commission on Judicial Nomination. Her bill, passed by the Assembly and Senate and now awaiting her signature, would enable a governor selecting a chief judge to make two picks off one list of recommended candidates: If the governor were to elevate an associate justice to chief, the replacement could come from the same list of seven candidates.
Hochul's expressed justification, that a 2-for-1 pick would allow her to act quickly to avoid a backlog, is invented. There is plenty of time for the commission, which has acted expeditiously in the past, to deliver an associate judge list in time for the nomination to be approved by the Senate before the June end of the legislative session. Hochul's apparent deal to appease the left and deliver a very liberal chief judge, but in a package with an associate judge who would merely be center-left, would invite the legislature to hold every chief judge nomination hostage, enshrining political deals in a law designed to eliminate them.
More fuel for reconsidering: The chief judge also supervises the statewide court system with a $3 billion budget, 15,000 employees and 1,350 state judges. All candidates on the chief judge list should have the necessary management skills. Associate judge candidates should bring different strengths.
Allowing one list for two slots might seem an arcane matter but it is a bulwark against further politicization of the merit selection process. Hochul should abandon the idea.
MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD are experienced journalists who offer reasoned opinions, based on facts, to encourage informed debate about the issues facing our community.
