Oregon judges should be appointed, not elected

I have no idea why Oregon voters, or those in any state, should be electing judges.

There has to be a better way to fill vacancies on the Oregon Supreme Court than to have voters, most of whom are clueless about both the judicial system and the qualifications of candidates, electing judges.

Last Tuesday in Oregon's primary election, the best qualified candidate, Timothy Sercombe, got the least amount of votes among the three candidates. So the other two, Portland attorney Nena Cook and Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Richard Baldwin, will face off on the November ballot.

A likely reason for this is disturbing.

In the weeks leading up to last Tuesday's primary election, Timothy Sercombe looked to be a shoo-in for Oregon Supreme Court justice. 

Sercombe won the backing of all 10 of the editorial boards of Oregon newspapers that made endorsements. He won a preference poll of attorneys -- conducted by the Oregon State Bar -- by a landslide over his two opponents. 

A judge on the Oregon Court of Appeals for the past five years, Sercombe also was following the well-worn path of his predecessors: Five of the state Supreme Court's current seven justices had served on the Court of Appeals. 

...Beth Bernard, who for years advised candidates on national campaigns before becoming executive director of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, thinks Cook won because she's a woman. When given the choice of two men and one woman who all had decades of legal experience, female voters chose the woman, Bernard said. 

"If they all seem qualified, they say, 'I'm going to go with the woman,'" Bernard said. 

And therein lies the problem with races for judgeships, some political observers say: Many voters make their choices not on issues, but on gut feelings or little knowledge of the candidates. 

Voters don't elect judges to the United States Supreme Court. Why should voters be electing judges to the Oregon Supreme Court? It'd be better to use the "merit plan" used by twenty-three states:

Judges are nominated by a nonpartisan commission, and then appointed by the governor. Judges serve a term and then are subject to a retention election, where they run alone, and voters can either approve another term or vote against them.

Currently Oregon is one of fifteen states which elect judges in nonpartisan elections. Since voters don't pay much attention to judges in elections (the Oregonian reported that about a third of those casting ballots skipped voting for the Supreme Court position), it doesn't make sense to have them picked by what amounts to a crapshoot.

In the past few years I attended two hearings of the Oregon Court of Appeals. I got to see TImothy Sercombe ask cogent questions of the attorneys arguing land use cases. I've read the opinions he wrote on the cases.

I didn't agree with all of his reasoning. But I came away highly impressed with Sercombe and was looking forward to him being on the Oregon Supreme Court. Or at least making a runoff for the November election.

Comments

[Katherine]

Well, then Oregonians need to wake up.....they read the internet so maybe they will. Word needs to get out to them. So here it is: May Election: Do you know who Judge Douglas Van Dyk, Clackamas Court is? He's a dominating older man who must be asleep at his job now and gives prejudice to men winning custody and family law suits as well as other law suits. Don't vote for him-don't reelect him in May. Look at his files of cases...who did he usually side with-the men in the case. I've seen him work....he just forgets what the woman presents in the case....a whole days of evidence/witnesses down the drain for her...he doesnt' even remember what she presents....then he gives the floor for the man to present much more time....than the woman....he lets the man do as much hearsay as he likes...he's a lax judge when it comes to letting the man do what he wants....but the woman-oh-he watches her like a hawk-he's not going to let her make a mistake in court....but the judge makes plenty of mistakes..he forgot her whole day of evidence and when reminded...he says "I don't remember about that," so she has to disregard all the email evidence that he recognized points proven the day before....and he only remembers what is presented last to him in the case most often....then he looses his temper..he makes judgments where he frequently tells me they can order the woman around to take away their parent time or give it to them at the man's whim....and it's find for men to bully their children and woman...he laughed and repeated that comment a lot in a raging tantrum....he just laughes at morals in family court....he has poor character.......towards the woman...he's suspicious of her...the man can do no wrong to him....is he biased....the woman need not show up for the case....he can't and doesn't care to perceive character of the man...the man is a man and he will stick up for the man's rights and the woman-she has no rights. That is what I've seen. Please don't vote for him .....we need fair judges in our system.....not men judges who are determined to dominate like Van Dyk.