NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... Five of these bills propose a merit selection plan with a judicial nominating commission. One proposal would require nonpartisan election. Four of the five merit selection plans are very similar, and therefore only two of the proposals will be analyzed. In the Senate, Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D. , Chicago) is the principal sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution/Constitutional Amendment 37 (SJR/CA 37) which is virtually identical to House Joint Resolution; Constitutional Amendment 1 (HJR CA 1) sponsored by Rep.
Jacob Wolf (R. , Chicago) (5). The other merit selection proposal which significantly differs from the Netsch/Wolf proposal is HJR/CA 35 sponsored by Rep (5). James McCourt (R. , Evanston), and it has the support of the Illinois State Bar Association. Both the Netsch/Wolf and the McCourt proposals require that appellate and supreme court judges be nominated by a judicial commission and appointed by the governor (5).
On the circuit court level the Netsch/Wolf plan would allow any county by referendum of its voters to adopt merit selection for its associate and circuit court judges (5). The McCourt proposal would mandate merit a selection in the Cook County Circuit Court and would allow other counties to adopt a merit selection (5). Both proposals are constitutional amendments and which require a statewide referendum. The proposals vary in the makeup of the nominating commission and the roles that the governor plays.
The Netsch, Wolf plan would authorize an 11 -member commission for judicial circuits other than Cook County (5). A slightly larger commission would be used in Cook County. The commission in each circuit would consist of six non-lawyers and five lawyers. The non-lawyer members would be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, and no more than three of the non-lawyers could be members of the same political party (5).
The lawyer members would be elected by the lawyers who practice and reside the districts. The governor would appoint one of the non-lawyers chairman, who could vote only in case of a tie. The nominating commission would review applicants for a vacancy and nominate three persons (5). The governor would choose one of these three candidates to serve as judge for a six-year term (5). At the end of the term, the judge would be on the ballot for a retention election.
The remaining proposal in the legislature, House Bill 2267, sponsored by Rep. Woods Bowman (D. , Chicago) would change the election method from a partisan to a nonpartisan system (6). This change could be implemented by legislative action without the need for a constitutional amendment. Candidates for judge would run in a nonpartisan primary; no party designation would be allowed in the election. Candidates would become eligible for the primary by filing petitions with the signatures of 500 qualified electors (6). The candidates who receive the two highest number of votes would run in the general election without party label (6).
Proponents claim that this plan would reduce the political party control over the primary and would lead to a more independent judiciary, but critics of Bowman's proposal contend that parties would still become involved behind the scenes (6). Furthermore, party labels, for better or for worse, are one of the few indicators the public may have of the judicial philosophy of a candidate (6). Two Reforms The proponents for court reform almost immediately began another campaign for a constitutional amendment, but the Chicago Democrats continued to resist changes in the partisan election system for judges (Kopecky 4). The need for a reorganization of the court system was of such importance that the legislature again reached a compromise similar to the one reached in 1957 (4). A constitutional amendment was proposed which created the court system now used in Illinois (4).
In 1962, the voters ratified this amendment which went into effect in 1964 (4). Although the judges were still elected, there were two significant changes. First, judges no longer had to be reelected in a partisan election campaign since the amendments provided for the nonpartisan retention ballot (4). This change along with the prohibition that judges could not actively participate in political activities tended to make the judiciary less dependent on partisan politics. Second, the appointment system for associate circuit judges was created (4). The issue of merit selection surfaced again during the Constitutional Convention of 1969 (4).
It was vigorously debated in committee and on the floor, and the convention deadlocked over the issue (4). Finally, the convention reached a compromise which placed the issue before the general public on the ballot as a special question (4). In addition to voting on the entire constitution, voters had the option of selecting either Proposition 2 A (election of judges) or Proposition 2 B (appointment of judges) (4). The campaign over the options was vigorous (4).
Mayor Richard J. Daley and the Cook County regular Democrats actively supported 2 A (4). Chicago newspapers, bar associations and civic groups generally favored 2 B (4). In the final tally, 2 A won with the approval of 50. 2 percent of the vote (4). Those favoring 2 B cast 43 percent of the vote and 6. 8 percent of the ballots showed no preference (4). Ironically, 2 B carried Cook County with 50. 1 percent of the vote.
Voters in the collar counties of DuPage, Kane and McHenry and the university counties of DeKalb and McLean (Bloomington) also favored merit selection (4). Proposition 2 A did make one significant change in the election process: judicial candidates are no longer nominated in party convention (4). The party primary is the principal vehicle through which judges are nominated for the general election, and the Constitution also provides for being placed on the ballot by petition (4). These changes had the effect of weakening the role of political party leaders in the elections. Current Supreme Court Justices James Dooley and William Clark defeated candidates backed by the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization in the 1976 judicial primary, and they won in the general election (4). No matter how many house bills there are, no matter how many debates there are being fought in the House of Represeantives, there will always be the question of how will judges be put into office?
The debate will linger on for many years to come and the road will keep getting bumpier. There will always be bleeding heart liberals who just want the most qualified. And the ultra conservatives who like the idea of letting the people decide. So why can't we make a decision on this simple task that everyone think is such a big deal? I don't think that this will ever be settled in my lifetime. So until we can decide in how we want to do thing, lets just pick someone who know what they are doing and have them do it well.
Free research essays on topics related to: constitutional amendment, joint resolution, court judges, circuit court, percent of the vote
Research essay sample on Percent Of The Vote Constitutional Amendment
