Our View

Our View

Rejection for proposal to take judicial election away from voters

Well, well, well, to our astonishment, the Arkansas Bar Association’s House of Delegates failed to endorse this proposed constitutional amendment that would give that body a majority stake in selecting state Supreme Court justices.

The delegates met recently to discuss this amendment, which called for the creation of a commission to nominate justices for appointment. It was during this meeting that some delegates voiced concerns over the proposed makeup of this commission.

It so seems that hours prior to the delegates meeting, the seven justices set to serve on the Supreme Court next year released a resolution opposing any plan to do away with judicial elections, which is the current method of selection.

For months the issue of stripping voters of their right to select state Supreme Court justices has been the focal point of discussion among advocates for change.

Even Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he would support the creation of an appointment system for justices, as have the leadership of both the House and Senate committees on the judiciary. Proponents claim out-of-state influence and self-serving donors influence the election of justices and a socalled commission system composed of nine members determining the nomination process would be better.

This new process is being spearheaded by no other than the Arkansas Bar Association which formed a task force to study merit selection in March. After the task force’s recommendation in support of merit selection was approved a draft amendment was then created . That draft amendment calls for the creation of a ninemember commission to nominate justices for 14-yearterms. The commission would send three picks to the governor for final selection.

Five of those members, enough to make a pick if the governor declined to do so, would have been lawyers appointed by the bar association and the Supreme Court. The remaining members would be appointed by the governor, House speaker and Senate president pro tempore.

So seems the idea of giving so much “power” to nonelected officials in this selection process was the basic reason for this proposed amendment being rejected., which confirms our original belief that politicians are demanding controlling power in selecting future justices.

As stated earlier, if this amendment somehow reaches the ballot box and the sales pitch convinces Arkansas voters this is a better process citizen selection will no longer exist.

It is our belief the intent here is to strip Arkansas citizens the right to select their future justices and turn the entire process over to controlling politicians in Little Rock. Is this what Arkansas voters really want? We would certainly hope the citizen voters will think twice before supporting this process if it so happens to appear on the election ballot.