Lawyer-turned-author John Grisham says Mississippi should switch to appointed judges to stem the tide of corruption.



"Anything is better than what we're doing," said Grisham, whose new legal thriller came out Tuesday. "The whole system needs to be overhauled. We've got to get away from elected judges."

The Appeal is hitting Mississippi bookstores just as a judicial bribery scandal is unfolding in the state where Grisham grew up.

On March 31, nationally known trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs goes on trial in U.S. District Court in Oxford. He has pleaded not guilty to a bribery scheme in which a circuit judge was paid $40,000 to rule in Scruggs' favor.

New Albany lawyer Timothy Balducci and his former business partner, one-time State Auditor Steve Patterson, have pleaded guilty to the scheme and are expected to testify against Scruggs.

"I know Dickie," Grisham said. "It's hard for me to believe he would get involved in a bribery scam like this. And until a jury finds him guilty or he pleads guilty, I'm not going to believe it."

He cited the Duke lacrosse case, where all of those charged were exonerated. "I just believe in the presumption of innocence and hope these things are not true," Grisham said.

But if the allegations are true, "they're shocking," he said.

Grisham also believes trial lawyer Paul Minor, convicted in an unrelated bribery case, isn't guilty. Prosecutors maintained loans and campaign contributions Minor gave judges constituted bribes.

"I never saw what the crime was. It was fuzzy what the law was," Grisham said. "You wonder if those prosecutions would have taken place with a different federal prosecutor."

The fact the ongoing scandal could aid sales doesn't please Grisham.

"I think the book will do well enough on its own without all this help I'm getting," he said. "We're still Mississippians, and we still have image problems. We're very defensive about it - all of us are. And you hate to see things like this make it worse."

Using real-life events in Mississippi and elsewhere, The Appeal tells the fictional story of a greedy billionaire who targets state Supreme Court justices he fears are unfriendly to his pollution-spewing company, which just got nailed with a huge jury verdict.

The same day Grisham's book emerged, The New York Times reported on a study of the Louisiana Supreme Court that showed justices voted in favor of their contributors 65 percent of the time, and two of the justices did so 80 percent of the time.

Grisham called that coincidence "blind luck" - something he seems to have had plenty of in his career, first as a lawyer in Southaven, then as a state legislator in the 1980s and especially as an author whose books have sold millions and been adapted into Hollywood movies.

The idea for The Appeal came to Grisham several years ago when he was reading about special interests pumping millions of dollars into judicial races.

He recalled clipping out articles about the Ohio Supreme Court in which the Times tracked the campaign contributions to the judges and showed how many times they voted in favor of their contributors.

"I don't think we're that bad in Mississippi," Grisham said.

Starting in 2000, Mississippi saw special interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spend millions of dollars trying to defeat or elect certain judges.

"On the other side were the trial lawyers, and they had to pony up and scramble and raise as much as they did, so you had both sides doing it," Grisham said.

Now the cost of running for the state Supreme Court exceeds $1 million for a job that pays no more than $114,390.

John Hailman teaches the law and literature at the University of Mississippi School of Law in a course titled, "From Confucius to John Grisham." He said Grisham was kind enough "to come once and teach the class and answer questions about the legal theories in his books."

The Times' Janet Maslin is among the early critics who have praised The Appeal.

"So far, the reviews have been good, and when that happens, we get really nervous about sales," Grisham joked. "You can't have it both ways."

The book also drew praise from USA Today, which called his book "an expose of how highly organized special-interest groups, loaded with cash, can manipulate the judicial system. It's Grisham's bully pulpit for reform."

If reform were left up to Grisham, he would favor an appointed system for judges where a blue-ribbon panel would select nominees. He also mentioned North Carolina, where the state has kept elections but eliminated private funding.

"As a practicing lawyer, when there was a judge's election, boy, you got nervous if you were a lawyer," he said. "That's your bread and butter. Suddenly these judges are groveling for votes and support. They shouldn't have to do that. It takes away their independence, and it's not a good system."

Electing judges is part of the Mississippi Constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to change.

Mississippi has had both systems during its history, said Aaron Condon, professor emeritus of the University of Mississippi School of Law. As a territory, it had appointed judges, switched to elected judges after it became a state, had appointed judges during Reconstruction and returned to elected judges after Reconstruction.

Mississippi's chief justice, Jim Smith, recently said he favors switching to appointed judges.

That raised Grisham's hopes. "Maybe this book will help people see the need for reform."

He recalled running for the Legislature in 1983 and 1987 - taking in about $5,000 each time.

"When you take the money, that changes the way you feel about that organization," Grisham said. "And when they come back to you a year later and ask for legislation, you think about the money you took. That's human nature."

To comment on this story, call Jerry Mitchell at (601) 961-7064.

[Anyone aware of any bribery in Texas criminal cases?]

JAS

So, appointed judges have some special protective shield that prevents them from being bribed or influenced in an improper manner? I'd like to hear more about this amazing process that eliminates any human error.

And, gee, I'm sure Grisham has such a protective shield, because he surely wouldn't be saying all this just to sell a few books, right?

John, I assume we all know he is talking about the uneasy feeling we all get hearing about the high dollar contributinos and bar parties for judicial candidates. As prosecutors, we don't have the resources (or the time) to make the sorts of donations and do the hob-nobbing that defense and civil lawyers can do. I realize most of our judges are too ethical to be swayed by that sort of thing, but it certainly "smells" bad.

No doubt neither system is completely foolproof. Elect them if you will, but visiting judges should also be accountable to the electorate. And, any judge who lost the bench should not be able to sit.

JAS

Well, personally, I feel like the electorate keeps the judges honest and humble. Long-term appointments make judges less accountable and pretty darn sure of themselves. If you don't believe that, just go sit in federal court for a few days.

quote:

---

Well, personally, I feel like the electorate keeps the judges honest and humble. Long-term appointments make judges less accountable and pretty darn sure of themselves.

---

Amen!!

You won't "solve" the problems inherit with an elected judiciary, by going to an appointed judiciary. You'll just exchange them for the proiblems inherit with an appointed judiciary -- and give up your chance of un-electing bad judges in the process.

In appointment jurisdictions, you get to be a judge by losing at golf to your State Senator, or because, like the Honorable Harry Stone of Night Court, you were the only one home when the committe called.

That's my opinion anyway.

On the other hand, if Texas ever does go to an appointed system, I'm certain Sen. Zaffarini is a better golfer than I am, and I'm usually home at night

I miss Night Court.

Simpler times. Who remembers who said, "I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me."?

As Retired Justice O'Connor Speaks Out Against the Problems Plaguing State Judicial Elections, the Supreme Court Still Refuses to Allow Reform
By EDWARD LAZARUS

. . .


O'Connor's Imperfect Solution to the Serious Problem She Isolates: Initial Merit Appointments Followed by an Up-or-Down Vote

The tough part, of course, is not diagnosing the problem, but figuring out how to solve it. In her article for PARADE, O'Connor says that if states insist on having partisan elections for judges, they should at least move to an election system that starts with merit selection, as Colorado's does. Under this approach, initial appointments to the bench would be made by a state's governor, based on the merit recommendation of a committee of eminent citizens. Judges would then sit for a few years, after which they would face an up-or-down vote of the electorate on whether they would keep their jobs.

To be sure, this would be an improvement on the current electoral free-for-alls. But there is always a danger in making judicial tenure dependent on electoral popularity. One of the most important jobs judges perform is to sometimes stand in the way of the popular will - to protect minorities from a tyranny of the majority, or to enforce state and federal constitutions, even when doing so is unpopular.

For full article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20080228.html

JAS

I asked an uncle of mine who lives in Colorado about their judicial appointment/retention system. He said the retention part is a joke, and none of the judges appointed to the bench in his part of the state had ever been booted out, even though some of them were embarassments.

Makes me wonder if there are any statistics from retention states showing how often judges are NOT retained ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Simpler times. Who remembers who said, "I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me."?

---

The waitress on Cheers.

Justice O'Connor fails to indicate how she and others conjure the notion that the appointment process is somehow not political or less political than the direct election of judges.

Does anybody remember Judge Bork? or how about the "high-tech lynching" Justice Thomas went through? Anita Hill received an ABA award for being an outstanding attorney that year, but did not say what great accomplishment in the law she advanced. What about Harriet Miers? The appointment process is far more political than the elected process.

The law should not be so complex that the average citizen cannot understand it. To remove the voice of the people from the selection of those that will govern them is nothing less than tyranny.

When I practiced in Virginia, when a bench was open, whoever wanted to run for judge would announce that they were interested. Then the local bar would vote by secret ballot until one candidate had a majority. The local bar would then forward the name to the House of Delegates for a more through vetting. After appointment, a judge was then subject to some form of periodic review.

And, yes -people still complained about certain judges. But, not anymore than we do here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
Simpler times. Who remembers who said, "I laughed. I cried. It became a part of me."?

---

William F. Buckley, Jr.?

N.M. uses something called "The Mo. System" or something like that. It's similar to the system described for Colo. When there's a vacancy, a committee is appointed to vet all applicants for the position.

The committee has to be 50-50 Demos and Repubs. The D.A.'s in the district get to appoint 1 person to the committee, and various judges get to appoint a certain number of people. But the one who fills most of the seats of this large committee is the dean of the state's law school. So you know they are fair.

The committee then forwards the names of all applicants that they find are competent, to the Gov., and he can only pick from the list.

While I was there I saw this procedure at work. The committee forwarded only one name to the Gov.

The appointee sits until the next election, at which time anyone who meets the statutory requirements to be a dist. judge can run in a regular campaign, like we have in Tex. The winner of this election then has a 6 yr. term, and thereafter he only faces a retention election to stay on the bench. In a retention election, the voters must approve his staying on the bench by at least 57 %.

The problem is that almost no one is ever removed because of a retention election. Most judges, without any campaigning at all, get at least 75% approval from the voters. I believe only 2 dist. judges have ever lost a retention election in N.Mex.

Bad judges stay on the bench for years, because no one wants to mount a campaign against a bad judge for fear of retaliation.

One of the sorriest judges I ever met sat on the bench in Farmington, N.Mex. for 18 years before being dislodged. I started a PAC, after I left, to get him off the bench. I called lots of attys in hopes of getting some $$, and the vast majority said, "he's terrible, but I think he'll get retained, and I can't afford to tick him off."

I did put up a web page (it's still up: JudicialTruth.com)Luckily a retired couple in Farmington really worked to get out the word, and Judge Onuska lost his retention election by a couple of hundred votes.

This campaign would have been impossible in a larger market. We were able to purchase radio ads for about $7.50 each. In Albuquerque the same ad would cost vastly more, and would have reached a smaller percent of the voters.

Retention elections is another "reform" idea that simply does not work.

I have recently had occasion to give some thought to the judicial selection process and have come up with these reforms. Keep the elections but make them non-partisan and perhaps move them to a special judicial election date, so that only those with a real interest participate. Divide the larger populated counties into multiple (smaller geographic) districts and reduce the allowable spending limits. Have either a requirement that a certain number of lawyers must sign a petition to get your name placed on the ballot or that any candidate must have passed a competence exam within six months of applying for a place on the ballot. If a petition is used for this part of the process, maybe the requirement should be that no lawyer signing the petition can contribute any money to your campaign. (I have not quite figured out how to avoid the big money firms from buying influence from judges). There are problems whichever way you go, but maybe there are ways to minimize some of them without creating new ones.

I prefer my chances with the voting public. It may not be pretty, but it has a greater chance of being open to anyone. Although the notion of starting with a well-qualified candidate is perhaps noble, the choosers should be the voters. This is Texas, where we value our role in government.

Terry, I applaud you for taking the initiative to remove this judge from office.

Thank you Ken. I actually had a wonderful time campaigning against him. And I learned a lot about people and politics doing it.