Will Lamont betray public’s trust with judicial nomination?
The new legislature takes office Wednesday. The House is expected to be missing Democrat Dan Fox, a six-term Stamford Democrat. Fox won a convincing victory in November and then betrayed the public’s trust.
Fox sought and received his party’s nomination. He qualified for public financing of his campaign. He asked voters to reelect him. Fox then decided he would rather be a judge than honor his implicit promise to voters that, if elected, he would serve.
Every judicial hopeful must receive the approval of the Judicial Selection Commission to win a spot on the list from which the governor may nominate judges for the legislature to approve. Fox appeared before the commission in early December and won its approval.
The decision to seek a judgeship is not an impulsive one. It requires the completion of a comprehensive application, including recommendations from people the aspiring judge hopes can add some heft and influence to it. Fox is well-liked in the legislature and belongs to the party in power. He cannot, however, be appointed to a judgeship while serving in the legislature, so he will not take the office he won.
For two years, millions have seen relentless undermining of confidence in our democratic institutions as an issue that demands our vigilance. Many of the most egregious 2020 election deniers were defeated across the nation in November. Voting was not disrupted. Nearly every loser conceded their race to the winner in the traditional manner that marks a healthy democracy.
That is all goods news, but it is not the end of the struggle. Winners need to act honorably. That means serving in the office a candidate sought and won.
Fox did not respond to an email asking when he decided to apply to become a judge. We may never know the details. The JSC operates in secret. If Fox had applied to become a judge while running for reelection, voters should have been told about it. Secrecy rules in the Constitution State.
The application was secret. Even the commission’s agenda is secret, though now and then one falls into public view. The interview and the commission meeting that follows it are also secret. Whom do the commission members reject or approve? Secret. The governor’s list of aspiring judges is hidden from public view.
If Gov. Ned Lamont nominates Fox to become a Superior Court judge, the governor will become an accomplice in undermining a fundamental tenet of democ
racy: You serve in the office you won on Election Day. Lamont is safely reelected to a second fouryear term. Fox could serve the term he won on Nov. 8, not seek reelection in 2024, and ask the governor to nominate him to the job he really wants in two years.
Instead, the people of the 128th House District would have no one representing them at the start of the legislative session. The public may have spent up to $33,175.00 on Fox’s campaign for a vacant seat with a public financing grant. (His final campaign finance report from November’s election is not due until Jan. 10.) Further distorting democratic norms, a special election would have to be held under rules that highlight Connecticut’s position as a state with some of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation.
A handful of party loyalists will choose a candidate, who could be a Fox family member or crony. Primaries are banned in legislative special elections. The special election would take place in the teeth of winter.
None of this will sway
Lamont. One of his two appointments to the state Supreme Court in his first term, Joan Alexander, was rushed through the JSC shortly before the governor appointed her to the high court. In April, one of Lamont’s nominees to the Superior Court was admitted to practice in Connecticut a few days before her confirmation hearing. She’d been serving as general counsel of a foundation without obtaining required credentials. Lamont withdrew her ill-judged nomination.
Events of the last several years have reminded us that the lawyers and judges appointed to courts may exercise a profound influence on the course of our nation. Respect for the nomination process and the candor of nominees remain essential to maintaining the public’s confidence in the judiciary and its decisions.
Disregarding the result of an election in order to reward a political ally diminishes the public officials who engage in these unseemly maneuvers. It is no way to begin a new term.