Supreme Weekly: Transparency is the word

---

This article may not adhere to Ballotpedia’s current neutrality policies.

---

September 8, 2011

by Katy Farrell and Tommy Schneider

As we've mentioned several times this year, the method of judicial selection referred to as merit selection has been scrutinized in state houses across the nation. One of the most common arguments against it is that the voters do not have as much of a say as they do in the partisan election of judges. Another argument focuses on the lack of transparency in the process.

This week we will look at efforts made by the courts to increase transparency and maintain their reputations as a (perhaps the most) trusted branch of government. In last week's article, we briefly touched on this by highlighting the attempt of the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission to open up the nominating process.

Iowa

Earlier this year, we had the opportunity to hear Chief Justice Mark Cady deliver an address about the role of the courts in modern society and how to improve the branch's image across the nation. (You can read more at: Evaluating Appellate Judges: Preserving Integrity, Maintaining Accountability conference (2011).) He faulted the courts for not actively participating in a dialogue with the public, instead allowing those who oppose decisions or funding to spread misinformation.

Earlier this week, Chief Justice Cady gave a phone interview with Eastern Iowa News Now, in which he listed the ways the court has become more transparent. In August, it started live streaming oral arguments, and is considering how to incorporate the social media platforms of Facebook and Twitter. Also, the court is traveling across the state, holding oral arguments to make it easier for more members of the public to view the process.

The chief justice also touted a study commissioned by the courts to be released this fall that looks at making the court system more accessible to litigants.

Maine

Like Iowa, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will also hold oral arguments outside of the courthouse this fall. The court will be at three different high schools in October, keeping with its tradition of exposing students and teachers to the work of the judicial branch. The neighboring counties to visit are Androscoggin County, Cumberland County and Sagadohoc County.

Wisconsin

Justice David Prosser has recused himself from a case that started in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Tuesday. After journalists and legal experts questioned his involvement in a case with his attorney as one of the parties, Prosser sent a letter to both parties, asking for their opinions. The Wisconsin Education Association Council requested that he recuse from the case, which promptly did last week.

Also in the state, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson suggested changes to increase the transparency of the high court. After a physical altercation, a hotly contested election and documents that show justices calling each other names, confidence in the court has dwindled in the past year. To improve its image and transparency, the chief justice proposes that some deliberations be open to the public and an outside body be formed to determine if a justice should recuse from a case. She also wants to change a rule stating that four justices are a quorum for determining court business.

So these reforms could be considered in two ways. One, Chief Justice Abrahamson has an important role to play in improving the court's image. When a court is as divided as the one in Wisconsin, consensus in opinions is almost impossible and that negatively effects the electorate justices were elected to serve. However, the other side of the coin is that Abrahamson laid out these changes as a slap in the face to the conservative side of the bench. With a rule outlining necessary recusals, she could be taking aim at Prosser, and the four justice quorum undoubtedly refers to the four-justice voting bloc on the court.

With polls like these becoming commonplace, outside observers are obviously clamoring for change.

Georgia

Attempts at transparency come in many forms, but an important part is to hold judges accountable when they violate the judicial canon in office. The Georgia Supreme Court did that last week, when it decided that Anthony E. Peters, a judge for the Catoosa County Magistrate Court, must step down from the bench and never again seek judicial office in the state. This was recommended by the Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia in May of this year.

The magistrate was accused of strange behavior, including: Shaving his head and eyebrows; pointing a gun at his head in court; admitting to smoking marijuana at least once a week from March 2010 to May 2010; kicking down two doors at a local house; and berating his boss on a local TV show, calling him "spineless."

Peters has been on administrative leave since June 2010, which he argued is enough punishment for his transgressions. In response, the Supreme Court said, "Judge Peters has failed to explain exactly how being paid his full salary while staying at home somehow constitutes appropriate discipline."

Florida

The Florida Supreme Court also heard a case this week in which a judge is accused of bizarre behavior. Judge N. James Turner, of the Ninth Circuit Court, is accused of hugging and kissing a Osceola County several times a day. The clerk testified that the affection was not recipricol, but that she feared for her job if she refused. In addition, the judge is accused of representing his mother on the bench, and accepting illegal campaign donations.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission has recommended that Turner be removed from office. Judge Turner's response to the campaign contribution charges says he should not be removed from office because the charges do not warrant it, nor did he knowingly circumvent the law. To read that brief, click here.

While the high court as yet to reveal a ruling, the questioning did not seem to lean to Turner's favor. As to his relations with the clerk, Justice Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente referred to it as "stalking" and "harassment".

Ohio

At today's Ohio Judicial Conference Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor's gave her first State of the Judiciary address in a unique way, via live internet stream. Despite technical delays that postponed the address for hours the address was both broad in spectrum and hopeful vision for the future of the judiciary. One of Justice O'Connor's key points was reaching out to the community to dispel poor public perception about the integrity and effectiveness of the courts was paramount. She urged judges to work within their neighborhoods to educate all members of the public about the courts and to help break misconceptions through familiarity. She asked judges to join community organizations or sports teams in order to connect with others, and suggested contacting local public access television channels to get court proceedings broadcast regularly to increase transparency.

Another key point of the State of the Judiciary was to highlight the open discussion the Chief Justice has been having with members of the legislature, academia and others about the judicial selection process. She feels that a move towards nonpartisan judicial selection will help eliminate partisan politics within the judiciary. She made note of a program being enacted by the Cleveland Metro Bar’s Task Force on Judicial Excellence and the Judicial Qualifications Committee as a possible model for future judicial selection reforms.

Supreme Weekly will resume on September 22.

See also

• Supreme Weekly: Hot topics hit the courts
• Judgepedia's Supreme Weekly: The States