Louisiana Voice

I don’t know about you, but while so many others are upset with the outcomes of elections of president, members of congress and governors, I am deeply concerned at the methods of election and appointment of judges, from family court all the way to federal district judges and members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Think for a moment about the criteria to which we hold judicial candidates just in Louisiana. Whoever makes the strongest, most credible claim of being tough on crime, who makes the loudest promise to hand down the harshest penalties to offenders and who, not incidentally, reaps the most campaign contributions from attorneys generally comes out on top in elections. Of course, the current swing of the political pendulum also dictates that in most cases, the candidate with an “R” behind his name has a decided advantage.

Simply stated, that’s no way to run a railroad. A judge should be chosen from among those with the most integrity and the deepest understanding of the law. Period. A candidate’s political philosophy should never be a consideration when making such a critical decision.

Let’s look at minimum requirements to seek a judgeship in Louisiana:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUDGE, COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, FAMILY COURT JUDGE, JUVENILE COURT JUDGE, PARISH COURT: The candidate shall have been admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana for at least 10 years for supreme court or court of appeals candidates and 8 years for district court, family court, parish court, or court having solely juvenile jurisdiction candidates, prior to the candidate’s election.  The candidate shall have been domiciled in the respective district, circuit, or parish for 1 year preceding the candidate’s election.  Elected or appointed incumbent judges are not eligible to run for any elective office other than their own or another judicial office.  In order to run for another office, they must resign from their office at least 24 hours prior to the date of qualifying for such other office.  A judge appointed to fill a vacancy shall be ineligible as a candidate at the election to fill the vacancy.  Candidate must be younger than the mandatory retirement age of 70, and a judge who reaches age 70 while serving a term of office will be allowed to complete the term (emphasis added).

You’d think the requirements would be a little tougher for consideration for appointment as a federal judge (which, by the way, are lifetime appointments). But you’d be wrong:

According to the U.S. Constitution, there are no specific minimum qualifications required to become a federal judge; the Constitution does not list any formal requirements for this position, meaning there is no set minimum age, years of experience, or even a requirement to be a lawyer.

But wait, there’s more. What about U.S. Supreme Court justices, the absolute highest legal position in U.S. government?

Well, the minimum requirements for that are a bit hazy, as well.

Just as with federal judges, there is no set minimum age, years of experience, or even a requirement to be a lawyer in order to qualify as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have my own suggestions, suggestions that I readily admit will never be adopted, partly because some of them would require amendments to the Louisiana and U.S. constitutions. But let’s look at some basic suggestions that should not be controversial provided we have candidates who are serious and sincere about the law.

First of all, let’s adopt a rule that all candidates for judge in Louisiana – no matter the level, family court all the way up to state appellate and supreme courts – must participate in an open forum to respond to questions about their actual knowledge of the law and that they must score at least an 85 percent accuracy rate on their answers or drop out of the race.

Some of the questions they might be asked:

• What is the Daubert standard?
• Define a motion in limine.
• Explain how an Alternative Dispute Resolution works.
• What is a Brady motion?
• Define the terms de facto and de novo.
• Same question for en banc and ex parte
• Give us your definition of the terms in forma pauperis, inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
• What’s the difference between an injunction and a temporary restraining order?
• Two more definitions: per curiam and pro per.
• What’s the difference between subpoena and subpoena duces tecum?
• Explain the terms voir dire and writ of certiorari.

These are just a few that popped into my mind. There are other questions, many others and anyone seeking a judgeship should be familiar with the terms. (And before you ask, yes, I do know the answers to almost all of the above questions, but the big difference is I’m not running for a judgeship.)

Piece of cake for an attorney, you say? Don’t be too sure of that.

There are times few and far, far between that I agree with U.S. Sen. John Neely Kennedy on anything since he switched from being an open-minded Democrat to a tunnel-vision, boot-licking disciple of Herr Trump. But on two separate occasions he literally destroyed the chances of two of Trump’s nominees to federal judgeships.

One was the 2017 nomination of MATTHEW SPENCER PETERSON with the most basic questions about his legal experience.

The other was the equally withering questioning of President Biden’s nominee, KATO CREWS, who had served more than four years as a magistrate judge, about the Brady motion.

Any first-year law student should have handled that question with ease but Crews thought it involved “something regarding the Second Amendment.”

Now, about those constitutional amendments:

In all judicial elections (this is for Louisiana because federal judges are appointed, not elected), no campaign contribution may come from any attorney or law firm. Period. All contributions must come from those unaffiliated with the legal profession. (Yeah, I know, this is Louisiana and they’re gonna find some way around the law, but hey, it’s a start).

For all federal judicial and U.S. Supreme Court appointments, candidates must be experienced, licensed attorneys with a minimum of 10 years’ practice. That’s the least we can do.

So far, in the history of this nation, I don’t think any non-lawyer has ever been appointed as a federal judge and I Know that no non-lawyers have ever been appointed to the Supreme Court. But don’t you think it’s past time we closed that loophole – just in case?