Then-Illinois state Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch speaks in 1979 in favor of merit selection for judges. (Sun-Times Library)

Counterpoint: Don’t hijack the voters’ right to choose judges

SHARE Counterpoint: Don’t hijack the voters’ right to choose judges
SHARE Counterpoint: Don’t hijack the voters’ right to choose judges

“Merit selection” of state judges sounds virtuous. But it would disenfranchise the public, stripping citizens of their right to vote for, and select, those who control the third branch of state government: the judiciary.


Critics of elected judges complain about political spending in state judicial races. Yet the complaint rings hollow; these same critics have poured millions of dollars into politically coordinated campaigns to switch to a system of judicial selection by unelected “expert” commissions.

They claim that merit selection is an “apolitical” method of choosing judges — one based on credentials rather than on policy views articulated during campaigns.

But that claim is sadly naive. Merit selection simply moves the politics behind closed doors. It turns the selection of judges over to commissions that are inevitably made up of legal elites — members of special interest groups (like trial lawyers and bar associations) with their own political agendas and ideological biases. The commissions then select a small number of candidates from whom a governor can appoint a judge, severely limiting the appointing official’s discretion.

There is no question that merit selection committees are often highly politicized, but the public and the media don’t see it because they meet in secret. Eliminating elections doesn’t create greater judicial independence. Shutting out the electorate merely makes judicial candidates beholden to a small group of insiders — and that reduces judicial accountability. Merit selection substitutes the politics of a small group of elites for the politics of the electorate as a whole.

There is no evidence that judges appointed through “merit selection” are more qualified or more productive than those elected by voters. There is no evidence that merit selection leads to a more fair and impartial judiciary, either. But it will certainly lead to a judiciary less accountable to the public.

It is the “great body of the society,” as James Madison referred to voters, who have the right to select the judges who wield so much power and authority over their lives, their safety, and their property. Those who push merit selection do not trust the American people to make a “proper” selection. Elitists always think they know best.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He is the coauthor with John Fund of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” (Encounter) and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside).

The Latest
The team will celebrate its 2021 WNBA championship with a ceremony at Wintrust Arena.
Patrick Wisdom has homered in four straight games, a feat no Cub has accomplished since Anthony Rizzo in 2015.
Our children have a right to expect more from our leaders, especially in the home of the world’s first juvenile court.
Bally’s is not contractually obligated to meet its own revenue projections. The Lightfoot administration agreeing to this reeks to us of haste and desperation.
The group said a change in curfew wasn’t the answer. More resources, like after-school programming and community centers that stay open late, would help prevent gun violence, they said.