Editorial: Partisan bullying of the state’s appellate judges
is not in the best interest of Tennesseans
Commercial Appeal//Staff Reports//May 10, 2014
Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey has shown there is good reason why the state’s appellate judges should not be selected by popular elections and why it is not wise to give the General Assembly a say in the selection of those judges.
The Blountville Republican is spearheading an effort to defeat state Supreme Court justices Cornelia Clark, Sharon Lee and Gary Wade in their Aug. 7 retention elections.
The national Republican State Legislative Committee has indicated it may join the campaign. Several out-of-state conservative interests groups are considering funding it.
The justices’ sins, according to an ouster strategy plan? The cliched conservative attack phrases that they are “soft on crime” and “anti-business.” The plan also suggests the justices could “toss” business-oriented civil liability changes enacted by the GOP-controlled legislature.
This type of partisan and philosophical bullying places the state’s Supreme Court justices and the judges who sit on the Court of Appeals and Criminal Court of Appeals in the untenable position of having to look over their shoulders when considering the important rulings that emanate from their courts.
Tennessee voters will have a chance Nov. 4 to have a say in how the state’s 29 appellate justices and judges are chosen. A proposed constitutional amendment will be on the ballot that will essentially preserve the current process for selecting the appellate judges: appointment by the governor for an initial term, followed by periodic “yes” or “no” statewide retention elections by the voters.
The amendment also would, for the first time, give state lawmakers the power to veto the governor’s selections, with confirmation occurring by “default” if the General Assembly failed to reject an appointee within 60 calendar days.
We have, on this page, supported the constitutional amendment, while expressing reservations about giving the legislature a say in judicial appointments. Ramsey’s plan justifies those reservations.
The appellate judges should not have to be burdened by the thought that their rulings could make them subject to an ouster drive in the future. What happened to one of the basic concepts of our republic — an independent judiciary?
And, is it in the best interest of Tennessee residents to have special-interest groups from outside Tennessee financing campaigns to oust a judge? It is not.
Republican Gov. Bill Haslam said he will not take part in his party’s campaign to oust the justices, but he will not try to discourage it. That is disappointing. The governor should be extremely mindful that partisan assaults on the judges, who make such impactful decisions on the lives of the state’s citizens, are something Tennessee can do without.
