There’s more to getting on NM bench

I’ve been a New Mexico attorney for over 50 years and many years ago was responsible for advising the governor about appropriate judicial appointments. I’ve also been a statewide candidate for office — lieutenant governor and attorney general. The editorial in (the Nov. 30) Journal, “Shut the revolving door on NM’s slots on the bench,” was written with evident good intentions; however, some points need to be made that the editorial missed. I’ll address the points in order.

First, we often have highly qualified judicial candidates, mixed in with some not-so-qualified who see a judicial appointment as a means of earning a decent living as compared to taking the time and considerable effort required to build a successful law practice. The “non-partisan judicial nominating commission” is something of an “old boy” network that is subject to the usual influences, but on balance, the commissions usually send qualified nominees to the governor.

Secondly, the requirement of our current judicial selection and retention system that obligates an appointee of the governor to rather immediately run for office is indeed a problem, but not exactly for the reasons suggested in the editorial. Expecting the voters to “fairly evaluate such things as the individual’s service as a judge, judicial temperament and ability to move cases” by allowing an additional year for such evaluation is an unrealistic expectation. Voters rarely know the names of or anything about the qualifications of long-time sitting judges, let alone recent appointees to the bench.

Our ballot in New Mexico is too long, contains too many statewide offices, and the judicial positions are at or near the bottom of the ballot. Allowing an additional year for the voters to evaluate the new appointees isn’t going to change anything. Voters will continue to usually either vote along party lines or leave the ballot blank in the judicial races.

Finally, related to my last comment, it is probably unwise to elect judges on a partisan basis for a couple of reasons, including that doing so often will determine the outcome of the balloting. Aside from the issue of judges needing to avoid rulings that are partisan in nature, the major problem recently appointed judges face when required to run is the all-too-likely outcome: Democratic judicial candidates will win and Republican judicial candidates will lose, which is both unfair to the GOP appointees and bad public policy. I say this as an active Democrat who believes judges should not be elected on a partisan basis.

This overlooks the fact that governors will more often than not appoint judges of their own party to the bench, which may be considered to be another problem, depending on your point of view. But this fact is a function of elections that have consequences. Requiring judicial candidates to run on a partisan basis need not be such a consequence.