Election night

Rumpole and JAABlog are covering your Dade and Broward elections. Even though I think judicial elections are ridiculous, it's still fun to watch the election results.

While you wait for the results, check out the new trailer for Square Grouper by the boys at Rakontur (who made The U and Cocaine Cowboys):



Finally, Efraim Diveroli is back behind bars, this time ATF nabbed him in Central Fla. He's still awaiting sentencing for the Miami conviction on the illegal Chinese ammo. The Complaint is quite a read.

Monday morning...

Monday morning + Rain = FREAKING HORRIBLE TRAFFIC

As you all know, I'm not a fan of judicial elections. Tony Mauro writes that the recent Citizens United decision might kill judicial elections:

For years now, judicial reform groups have more or less resigned themselves to the reality that the public likes to elect its state judges and will fight any effort to appoint them instead.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision in Citizens United v. FEC may have altered that sober truth -- or at least has given reformers a glimmer of hope that it might. By supersizing possible corporate domination of judicial elections, the thinking goes, the Supreme Court's decision may finally make the public see how unseemly the elections are -- and move toward merit-based selection as an alternative.
"There is a silver lining to the decision," said Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who has taken the lead in seeking change in Ohio's elective system for judges. "For those of us who have been trying to impress upon the public the deleterious effects of money in these elections, it helps us make the point that we need to get the money out."
"The time is now for change," said Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. "I believe we can revitalize the merit-selection movement."
Kourlis spoke at a Georgetown University Law Center conference on judicial elections convened on Jan. 26 by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In retirement, working with Kourlis and others, O'Connor has become a merit-selection evangelist who energizes the movement by her sheer presence. O'Connor's calendar is dotted with meetings with local good-government groups across the country aimed at jump-starting the effort to change the way state judges are chosen. Currently, O'Connor said, more than 80 percent of state judges have to win a political election to gain or retain their seats.

Back from the West Coast

It was a fun week in San Francisco (I can't believe I missed the Father Cutié drama)...

I see the blog was in good hands while I was away. Rick was great and we hope to have him back on a regular basis.

Just a couple of quick hits before we get going for the week:

-- The Liberty City 6 jury (the latest version of it) will continue deliberating this week. That case is truly jinxed... (In his post on last week's LC6 happenings, Rick missed Mike Tein -- who, of course, is the most quotable lawyer in the District -- from the Blum article: "What a shameful waste of our taxes at the worst possible time. Just think what $10 million could have done for our schoolchildren in Liberty City.")

-- The District now has a Wiki page. It's interesting to look at the historical makeup of the Court. (Some trivia pointed out on the page: "This federal district has the dubious distinction of having had more judges removed through impeachment than any other district, with a total of two, one-third of all federal district judges so removed.")

-- Justice O'Connor had this to say about judicial elections: "They're awful. I hate them." More here.

-- Rick posted on the FIU faculty vote for Dean, and FIU law professor Howard Wasserman has a lot to say about the vote and the coverage here. Howard criticizes the open proceedings and compares it to watching sausages being made. Gotta disagree with Howard here -- we wanna know how sausages are made. Open proceedings are a good thing. Better to have the press in there and reporting (even if the coverage in this case wasn't complete) than the alternative of having the doors closed.

-- Rumpole demonstrates why the Ben Kuehne case needs to be dismissed.

Election Day

It's that time of year again.

Many federal judges aren't conducting trials today so that jurors can vote.

I always ask the question about judicial elections vs. appointments. Who has the better system? In the judicial races today, what do you know about the candidates? What does the general public know? Are we making an informed decision?

You all know my view -- the federal appointment system, which has its own flaws, is the better way to select judges.

Thoughts?

Maybe I need to rethink this appointment thing...

...after this.

Election Day

Tuesday is election day for state judges in Miami. As I look through the information available about most of the candidates, I become more convinced that the federal appointment system is superior.

Electing a public defender?

We haven't discussed the recent announcement by Bennett Brummer that he will be retiring and not seeking re-election next year as Miami's Public Defender. (Rumpole has been posting a bunch about it.)

What I find interesting about the state system is that Florida elects its public defenders. I think it's a bad idea to have elections for public defenders (and for judges).

First, how do people campaign for public defender? "I am a really good criminal defense lawyer and will free more criminal defendants than my opponent." I don't think that's going to be too successful.... They certainly can't run on the tough on crime platform. What if a prosecutor decides to run saying that if elected, he would assign the best defense attorneys to the few innocent clients and the rest will rightfully be convicted? Sounds ridiculous, but you see the point.

The federal system has it right -- the public defender should be appointed, based on merit. See, e.g., Kathy Williams.

Luckily, we have had a great Miami PD for the past 30 years in Brummer. It will be interesting to see how this election plays out.

See,

Justice O'Connor agrees with me.

Judicial Elections vs. Appointments

In theory, judicial elections seem like a great idea -- judges are accountable; it's democratic; we're not stuck with a bad judge for life...

But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.

The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?

Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.

Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.

Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.

As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.

What about elections from a small group of pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?