Recent retirements have created 12 judicial vacancies across Kentucky. A 13th opening exists due to the death of Jefferson Circuit Judge Kathleen Montano. All but one of the retiring judges took senior status, which means among other things they could continue handling cases in their former divisions until their replacements are selected by voters in November.
On the other hand, these vacancies gave Gov. Steve Beshear the opportunity to appoint new judges in all 13 instances. But he currently plans to make just six appointments, including a replacement for the late Judge Montano and a replacement for former Chief Justice Joseph Lambert.
Choosing to appoint replacements in those two instances is understandable. What is less understandable is why Beshear chose to fill just four of the 11 other vacancies by appointment. (The four are the circuit and district court vacancies in Fayette County and two district court vacancies in Jefferson County.) By doing so, he creates the appearance of playing favorites in those four instances by giving his appointees the advantage of running as semi-incumbents this fall. “Elect Judge Soandso” or “Keep Judge Soandso on the Bench” carries a bit more gravitas than a simple “Elect Soandso.”
If Beshear had chosen to appoint in all 11 instances, the consistency of that approach would have reduced the appearance that politics were involved. Certainly, leaving it to voters to fill all 11 vacancies would have removed any appearance of political considerations coming into play on his part. But by taking an inconsistent course of appointing four and leaving seven to the voters, he appears to be playing favorites.
In response to questions about Beshear’s decision to appoint in some instances but not in others, the governor’s office issued the following statement:
“We will evaluate judicial openings on a case-by-case basis with one criterion in mind – who will be the best judge, whether that’s a senior judge or through an appointment. Timing is not the issue. Rather, the concern of the governor is with being deliberative and thoughtful so as to pick the best judge. Another complicating factor is that we are experiencing a mass exodus of judges right now to retirement, along with a number of openings on judicial nominating commissions. The sheer volume of those numbers will require us to utilize both senior judges and appointments if we hope to move as expeditiously as possible. The larger issue, ultimately, is creating the best possible judicial system to serve the state of Kentucky. That is Gov. Beshear’s focus. Picking the best judges possible is the cornerstone of creating such a system. That’s how the governor will proceed in making such decisions.”
Gee, I’m glad they cleared that up.
Larry Dale Keeling, a columnist for the Lexington Herald-Leader, has spent most of his 35-plus years in journalism reporting on or writing editorials and columns about Kentucky’s politics and political issues. He now brings his experience and expertise on those topics to the KyKurmudgeon blog.
Larry Dale: You make excellent points, but I think the Governor deserves praise for resisting a “knee jerk” reaction to judicial appointments that give the “incumbent” UNDUE advantages, as you pointed out.
The LESS appointments the Governor makes, the MORE the judiciary is left to the Democratic process where the people really can decide between candidates with “equal” starts.
I think less is more in this regard as well. That’s why I wish he had stopped with the replacements for Judge Montano and Justice Lambert.
ldk
What about the 2 district judges back in February that he appointed down in London and Williamsburg that had made political contributions both to Beshear and his candidate of Scott Alexander for State Senate. Both survived with being able to use incumbency and advertise as Keep the Judge. Both turned themselves into the Judicial Ethics Commission for the wrongful contributions to Alexander while they were judicial candidates. Yet the Commission has still taken no action against either. Its all politicss and judgeships these days. The commission will probably wait 10 months and enter a reprimand in December to give both of the governors picks the chance to win. Both candidates took the position of no big deal in what they had done and the local Democrats turned out in droves to support the Governors 2 picks. Who says you can’t buy a judgeship.
Thanks for the reminder about that episode.
ldk
As KyJurisDoctor points out, all these appointments are a way around electing judges. There is another reason for not appointing.
The public is paying for extra judges. As Larry Dale pointed out nearly all of the “retiring” judges took senior status. So, the citizens of Ky are paying for the senior status judge and the appointed judge to do the same job until the election.
Anyone who would seek and accept an appointment to an unnecessary judgeship is showing a good reason to vote against him or her.
Also, we now have so many of these senior status judges that we should hardly ever have to appoint a judge until the next election. These appointments defeat the very purpose of senior status judges.
Early judicial retirement is getting out of hand. A few years ago a number of Supreme Court Justices retired before their terms expired so they would get a better retirement. Let’s give credit to Justices and Graves and Wintershimer for NOT retiring early. Now judges are retiring early to get senior status. 12 is a lot of retirements.
All this early judicial retirement needs to stop. When 2 judges get together, they do not discuss the law. They talk about their pensions.
Pennyrile Dem,
I agree that the fewer appointments the better. I also agree that early retirements got out of hand. That’s one reason the legislature is letting the senior judge program sunset in January. The senior judges in the program will continue until their time runs out, but no new judges will be able to join the program.
BTW, it’s nice to have a blog reader from the Pennyrile. I’ll be in that area soon visiting my wife’s folks.
ldk
I disagree with Pennyrile Dem. I would prefer that our judges be sitting judges who are accountable in the next election, not senior status judges who have no accountability. Kentucky’s senior status judge program is not a good thing for this state. A few senior status judges do a good job; many do not. Too many participants in it are lazy and careless, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it since they are immune to elections and the judicial branch will not do anything about bad judges. Give us accountable judges any day, not these retired guys for whom being a judge is a part time hobby for padding their already-generous retirement benefits.
In theory, a limited senior judge program has merit as a means of filling in during vacancies on the bench and/or reducing backlogs of cases. In practice, though, it has been subject to abuse. And it is far too generous in enhancing retirement benefits.
ldk