On October 17, Indiana appealed Common Cause Indiana v Indiana Secretary of State to the 7th Circuit. This is the case over whether Indiana can tell political parties that they can only nominate for half the seats up, in partisan judicial races in Indianapolis. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young had invalidated the system on October 9.
Limited nominations laws were passed to keep the dominant political party from winning all the seats. In other jurisdictions with limited nominations laws, such as Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, limited nomination laws make it possible for independent and minor party candidates to more easily win. But Indiana has very strict ballot access laws, so minor party and independent candidates almost never get on the ballot for judge in Indianapolis. As a consequences, voters inevitably face a general election ballot with only Democrats and Republicans. Since each of those parties can only run for half the seats, the voters have no real choice; all the candidates on the ballot automatically win. The last time anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican ran was in 2002, when a single Libertarian ran.
One of the oddest parts of the U.S. District Court decision is that Judge Young found that Common Cause has standing to challenge the system. Normally, a restriction on the ability of a political party to nominate as many candidates as it wishes would be challenged by a political party, but in this case, no political party complained.
I personally believe all judicial offices should be nonpartisan – and none of them shall be allowed to hold office for life.
Elect those on the local level (including multi-county but less than statewide) to no more than 3 four year terms. Allow initial election to statewide judicial offices, with “confirmation for retention” by the voters at the conclusion of first term, but no more than 3 four year terms. And for all Courts requiring more than one judge, let the terms be staggered.
For federal judicial offices; for those less than the Supreme Court, allow American Bar Association to submit names of qualified jurists, and those willing to serve, to be selected for single six year staggered terms, with President of the United States selecting from a Lot containing the names, before Congress Assembled, the name of each justice for the respective court.
For the U.S. Supreme Court, establish by Congress or by Constitutional Amendment – whichever is feasible – that the United States Supreme Court shall consist of nine (9) members. And the President of the United States shall select before the Congress Assembled, from a Lot containing the names of the Chief Justices of the Several States of those willing to serve, for a single term of nine (9)years, resulting in a Justice with seniority retiring annually, and a new justice replaced annually.
Obviously this would not satisfy everyone – particularly for the U.S. Supreme Court. But at least there are the odds that one year a “liberal” justice might be selected, and the following year a “conservative” justice might be selected. Over time, there would be as many “liberal” courts as there would be “conservative” courts.
At least this suggestion would put an end to lifelong judicial careers, and hopefully would take the continuous political bickering over court appointments out of our politics – which I believe the founding fathers never intended or suspected would occur.