Blame the system for a lack of diversity in judges
A recent Republic story (“Arizona’s Supreme Court Short on Diversity,” March 2) suggests that the reason there are so few minority judges in Arizona is because they don’t apply and when they do their professional qualifications are not up to snuff.
Contrarily, I proffer that the judicial selection system in Arizona is biased and intentionally excludes minority candidates.
The article touches on the challenges of recruiting minority attorneys to apply for judgeships — and the creation of the Commission on Minorities, among other efforts, to drum up qualified candidates. It mentions a program, for instance, to “encourage minority lawschool students to see themselves as future members of the Arizona judiciary. ... This year the program will expand to include undergraduate and high-school students.” Contemporaneously, a commission member visited elementary school students “and talk[ed] to them about being a judge.” Wow, such innovative efforts should result in a plethora of judicial applicants.
Once recruited, every judicial applicant must have their “professional qualifications” vetted by one of several Judicial Selection Commissions. These commissions comprised appointees hand-picked by the governor. The supposedly independent commissions then interview the candidates, cull the applicant pool and determine a list of finalists to forward to the governor.
No person cited in the Republic article gave one objective factor considered in the selection process. Rambling interview sessions to determine quality result in subjective selections — that is, a “gut feeling” selection by each commissioner. Inevitably, selections affirm that facsimile applicants – those most like the selection panel itself – are voted the most qualified.
Because minority applicants are not represented on the selection panels in any substantive manner, selectors find the status quo applicants nearly always more qualified than any minority candidate. Objectivity is the antithesis of this process. The result is predictable and purposeful.
Arizona’s makeup is 30.5 percent Hispanic and 44 percent minority. Between January 1991 and July 2015, 251 Arizona lawyers were tapped as Superior Court, or state, judges. Twenty-three were Hispanic (9 percent); a total of 38 were racial minorities (15 percent). During the same period, 51 appellate judges were appointed. Fifty were from the same political party as the appointing governor. Three percent of Gov. Jan Brewer’s appointees were Hispanic.
Gov. Doug Ducey has named 51 judges: 38 in Superior Court, 10 in Appellate Court and 3 to the Supreme Court. Four appointments, or 8 percent, are Hispanic. So, the sacred selection process results in Republicans appoint Republicans, Democrats appoint Democrats, white people appoint white.
It was opined by the Arizona Supreme Court chief justice, in 2014, that the state’s judicial selection process has produced “one of the best state judiciaries in the nation.” But the fact is, this process is exclusionary and perpetuates stereotypes that racial and ethnic professionals are inferior compared to their non-minority counterparts.
This supposedly neutral system has a disparate impact on an identifiable group of attorneys. In other words, it is an institutional barrier that keeps specific attorneys off the bench — not their lack of qualifications or interest.