Your circuit court vote won’t change outcome

As voters cast ballots in the weeks leading up to Election Day, there is one race in which they cannot change the outcome.

Four sitting Circuit Court judges are seeking election to 15-year terms, after being appointed by Gov. Larry Hogan. They face no opposition in the general election, and none is actively campaigning.

Judges Pamela Alban, ElizabethMorris, Robert Thompson and Richard Trunnell topped June voting in both theRepublican andDemocratic primaries. Thatwonthem the right to advance to the general election alone, ending challenges from former county prosecutor Wes Adams and civil practice attorney Annette DeCesaris.

All four will continue in office even if they only vote for themselves. They all appear to be competent, professional and very nice people, sowe think others should vote for them as well. Morris’ election would be historic, the first Black woman elected to a full term on the county bench.

Awrite-in is possible, but so far fetched this election is a moot point really.

An election with no consequences raises once more the question of why Maryland goes through the difficulty of electing its Circuit Court judges.

Judges who sit on the Circuit Court are appointed by the governor with advice froma nominating commission, then serve one year before running in a nonpartisan election on the next ballot.

They preside over trials for most civil and criminal cases, family disputes such as divorces, adoptions and a range of other matters including appeals from trials for comparatively minor offenses in District Court.

The state constitution spells out how judges are chosen, and it has changed over the years so that now only Circuit Court and Orphan Court judges are elected. All the rest are appointed by the governor to 10-year terms with consent from the state Senate.

They stand for “retention” to these state courts one year after appointment.

Critics of judicial elections, including us, wonder if it’s worth it. Few challengers ever win, and there is this ugly image of a judge asking for campaign contributions. The most likely contributors are lawyers who will argue cases before them.

Advocates for electing judges point out success in the state’s system of appointment requires working within the system. Just as there is the ethically squishy conflict of a judge accepting contributions in an election, those outside the system point to political favoritism within the appointment process.

Nobody has been a target of that criticism more in recent history than Mark Crooks, appointed to the Circuit bench in 2016. A former prosecutor in New York and Maryland, he was legal counsel to Hogan when hewas picked.

That energized a field of six challengers in 2018. Crooks proved to be a bungler on the campaign trail. He had the backing of the local Republican Party, which put his name on a campaign flyer for a County Council candidate— contradicting judicial rules of conduct.

Then he attended a party fundraiser for Roy Moore, the Bible thumping former Alabama judge running for U.S. Senate. It was before stories aboutMoore preying on young women were made public, but Crooks sheepishly admited he didn’t know Moore’s reputation and was just going along with his new friends in the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, in a year when Republicans did poorly — losing control of county government and the prosecutor’s office — Crooks walked to an easy victory. Voters demonstrated trust, or at least acquiescence, in the governor’s choice.

Appointment has its flaws, and Maryland’s system of disciplining judges for poor conduct is far fromaneffective check.

But we think this fall’s meaningless election is more proof that Maryland shouldmove toamendits constitution, and end the election of Circuit Court judges by popular vote.