Trial lawyers have undue influence
I believe most Montanans know who their congressional delegation, governor and a few other elected state officials are. But I bet even you can’t name just one Montana Supreme Court Justice.
Many voters know very little about these public servants when it comes time to select or re-elect a justice on election day. After all, what do we have to go on when deciding if an unopposed Justice should be retained or not... a choice that may result in serious consequences if you vote for a person with political values opposite your own?
For being such a critical branch of state government, the Montana Supreme Court has been derelict in their duty to inform voters about the merits and voting records of judicial candidates. Is this an innocent oversight or is information being withheld from the public for political reasons?
The following helps provide an answer. The state Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and six associate justices, each serving eight-year terms before re-election. If a justice must be replaced mid-term, the governor appoints an interim justice who must then run in the next election. This interim justice is vetted by the Montana Judicial Nominating Commission made up of seven members. The majority of four “non-judicial/non-attorney” members are appointed by the governor plus two attorneys appointed by the Supreme Court plus one district judge elected by all district judges.
It must be pointed out that the Montana Trial Lawyers Association has for years played a very active role in advising the governor as to the makeup of this seven-member commission and thus, from all appearances, ultimately decides who is selected for interim justice. This was most evident in the recent selection of Justice Jim Shea to replace Justice Brian Morris.
Of those vying for this selection only one candidate was a district court judge with real world experience in a courtroom involving real people with real issues. The Nominating Commission ignored the latter and instead, recommended four trial lawyers, from among which Jim Shea (a trial lawyer appointed to the Montana Workers’ Compensation Court by Gov. Schweitzer in 2011) was selected by Gov. Bullock.
Should we be surprised? It is clear that our “impartial” Judicial Nominating Commission is made up of political appointees with strong political leanings and with oversight by a cabal of legal professionals advancing their own political agenda. We all want selection by “merit” but the system does not allow for common sense and fair play to interfere with the seemingly unconscionable process now in place.
Now stop for a minute and think about this. The best trial lawyers are the most biased of all legal professionals (their clients are always right). If a trial lawyer didn’t think and act so one-sidedly, he or she would not succeed in the legal business. Do you really think a trial lawyer is best suited for a job that requires putting personal and political opinions aside to reach a fair decision as is expected of them... especially when there are experienced judges already making impartial decisions in a courtroom available for this important role?
Because of this seriously flawed system of selecting Montana Supreme Court justices, is it any wonder that a recent study of our state’s justices concluded that Montana is deemed the sixth most liberal state Supreme Court in America? (Look up: Stanford University “State Supreme Court Ideology and ‘New Style’ Judicial Campaigns,” Oct. 31, 2012). Sadly, the system that is now in place encourages the justices to act based on partisan politics.
I received a glimmer of hope from an article in the Sept. 15 Daily Inter Lake describing justice candidate Lawrence VanDyke who is challenging incumbent Justice Mike Wheat in the next election. How refreshing to see a candidate state specific differences between himself and his opponent. For once we voters are given a clear choice.
Finally, I wish to comment on the Sept. 28 Daily Inter Lake letter authored by retired Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson and six other retired justices who whined and bellyached about the efforts of Republicans and others who wish to overturn the liberal monopoly on the state Supreme Court by daring to donate money to traditional, Constitution-supportive court candidates.
Mr. Nelson, after demonstrating that he is still unable to release the shackles of his strong liberal political bias and a lingering stench of hypocrisy after years of serving as an active justice, sums up his harangue with the statement: “No Montanan wants to litigate in a court where the fix is in because the judge or justice is beholden to those who spent him or her onto the bench. Montana’s judiciary must not be forced onto the auction block.”
I agree, Mr. Nelson. Changing the laws so that the state judiciary isn’t run behind the scenes by the Montana Trial Lawyers Association would indeed be a good start. And change the laws to require open debate and full disclosure of all court candidates such as is being pursued by Mr. VanDyke, so that liberals like yourself and your co-signers will finally be exposed in the court of public opinion prior to elections.
Maybe then we can all make informed decisions on justice selections and we can hopefully have a Montana Supreme Court someday made up of justices chosen based on merit and not on affiliation and affluence.
Merlette is a resident of Bigfork.