This is a constitutional amendment that's on the South Dakota ballot this year, and I'm trying to find out as much as possible about it before I vote and send in my ballot. Any thoughts or opinions from others are welcome.
Constitutional Amendment A
Title: An amendment to Article V, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, providing for the merit selection of circuit court judges.
Attorney General Explanation:
Under the Constitution, circuit court judges are elected on a non-political ballot for eight year terms. The Governor appoints judges to fill vacancies for the balance of unexpired terms. Nomineeds for vacancies are selected by the judicial qualifications commission.
Amendment A would change the Constitution by establishing an appointment and retention election procedure. New judges would be appointed by the Governor from nominees selected by the judicial qualifications commission. Judges would be subject to a retention election on a non-political ballot three years after appointment, and every eight years after that, by the voters of the circuit the judge represents.
A vote "Yes" will change the Constitution.
A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is.
=
=
=
=
==
Here's an editorial in favor of the amendment from the Rapid City Journal, excerpted below.
It cites a recent Supreme Court case, Minnesota v. White, as the reason behind the change - and states the purpose is to preserve nonpartisan elections.
In South Dakota, circuit court judges face an election every eight years. Some circuit court judges win their spot in an election, but usually they are appointed by the governor following a vacancy. The elections of judges has been in place since 1921. In 1972, a constitutional amendment created the Unified Judicial System; another amendment in 1980 adopted merit selection for Supreme Court justices and interim appointments to the circuit court. Supreme Court justices face a retention election every eight years (voters cast yes or no votes on retention), while circuit court judges, whether appointed or elected, can face an opponent in a judicial election every eight years, although only about 20 percent of judges are opposed.
Now, thanks to recent U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court decisions, the judicial landscape has changed.
Our system of judicial elections has worked because candidates must adhere to the South Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct during elections. Judicial candidates cannot directly solicit campaign contributions - not even knowing who has contributed - nor can they make campaign promises (e.g., "Every DUI will get the maximum sentence").
Our tradition of nonpartisan judicial elections may be finished after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Minnesota's canon of ethics for judicial elections in 2002 (Minnesota vs. White).
In response, and in an effort to keep money and special interests from influencing the judiciary, the Legislature has placed Amendment A on the 2004 ballot that would make circuit court judges subject to the same rules as Supreme Court justices. Under the amendment, applicants for circuit court vacancies would be reviewed by a seven-member, bipartisan Judicial Qualifications Commission, which would forward two or more candidates based on the merits of their qualifications to the governor, who would appoint one. This is the same process that exists now for filling Supreme Court and circuit court vacancies and is how about three-quarters of the state's 38 circuit court judges got their jobs. The amendment eliminates elections for circuit court judges, who would face instead a retention election every eight years, like Supreme Court justices. The more open the candidate review process and appointment process is, the better the public will be served.
I'm very interested to hear what people think who have more knowledge of this issue than I do.