Constitutional Amendments (Arguments For and Against) Abridged

Arguments For and Against Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3

2014

Arguments For

1. Corrects an irregularity in this constitutional section.
   The proposed amendment corrects an irregularity in the current constitutional provision governing the date on which a sitting judge or justice must indicate an intention to stand for a nonpartisan retention election. All such retention elections are held during the general election in November, and there is no primary election. Thus, there is not a good reason to have justices and judges adhere to the early date for declarations of candidacy that govern partisan primaries rather than the later date required for minor party or independent candidates.
2. Removes minutiae of filing dates from constitution.
   Administrative provisions dictating the filing date for elections do not properly belong in the constitution; they are generally set by statute. The cumbersome process of amending the constitution prohibits the legislature from changing election processes in an expeditious manner, if circumstances warrant, if filing dates are enshrined in the constitution. This is especially true in this case, where the date in the constitution has no relevant relationship to the office.
3. Removes a premature deadline for retirement announcements by sitting judges.
   The current constitutional provision forces justices and judges to announce whether they will retire long before it is necessary to do so simply because partisan candidates in general elections are required to file for primary elections held in June. The nonpartisan retention elections are not held until November for justices and judges.

Arguments Against

1. Unnecessary change.
   The present constitutional requirements for judicial elections in the state represent a wide-ranging reform of judicial selection that was crafted in 1988. There is no compelling reason to undo part of that reform at this juncture, when the 1988 reforms have operated successfully for a quarter of a century.
2. Weakens connection between electorate and judicial office.
   The filing requirement as presently enshrined in the constitution ― tied to the dates required for the vast majority of candidates ― acts to remind a justice or judge that while a retention election differs in form from other elections, the election is directly tied to the voters and their aspirations for the judiciary, and it underscores that the judiciary derives its authority from the electorate.
3. Increases potential for politics to intrude on judicial elections.
   Leaving the filing date for retention elections in the constitution prohibits the legislature from manipulating retention election filing dates for political or partisan advantage.