There’s just something a little untoward about seeing judges on the campaign trail. Judges are supposed to be impartial, not part of a slate of party candidates pushing an ideology and soliciting campaign donations.
Explaining New Mexico’s unusual system of choosing judges can be difficult. In a nutshell, metropolitan, district, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court judges are either elected or are appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy after being vetted and recommended by bipartisan judicial nominating commissions.
Elected judges serve full terms. Appointed judges serve at least a full year until the next general election, at which time they may run for the seat. If they win, they face periodic retention votes and must receive at least 57% of votes cast to be retained. There are no term limits for judges at any level. District, appellate and Supreme Court candidates are eligible for, but not required to go with, public financing in non-retention elections.
The system is a mix of elections and vetted appointments. Either way, there’s a partisan election involved at some point. “It’s just inherently uncomfortable,” says state Supreme Court Justice David Thomson.
Thomson says the current system has its pros and cons: It’s likely made the bench more diverse and has kept judges responsive to the public, but it’s also deterred some applicants from seeking appointments because of the need to run a political campaign. For example, a well-qualified lawyer in private practice might shy away from applying for a vacant judgeship because he or she would have to run in a partisan election to stay on the bench after having had to shut down their practice to accept a judicial appointment.
Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a Las Cruces Democrat, attorney and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the system is at odds with the judiciary’s role as impartial arbiters of the law and injects partisan politics into the judicial selection process. A nine-person commission appointed by the Supreme Court is expected to recommend changes by Nov. 1.
Revising the process to remove the politics is worth exploring. The current system has produced a judiciary heavily tilted to the political party that holds both houses of the Legislature (which makes the laws) and the Governor’s Office (which appoints judges to open seats).
Justice Thomson believes a robust vetting process like the bipartisan nominating commissions should remain. So do we. Down-ballot judicial races draw little attention from voters and are low-information contests. Bipartisan nominating commissions serve an important function, vetting applicants and making recommendations based on legal knowledge, performance, etc.
Options that eliminate the need for judicial candidates to pledge allegiance to a party and grub for cash would strike a better balance. We await the recommendations.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.
