Liberals Like Kerry Healey Do Not Want Mass Citizens Involved in Picking or Removing Judges, Neither Does the Boston Globe
Can We Ever Become Like the Other States?
By MassNews Staff
            Citizens feel “betrayed” by the judges in our state, says the ultra-feminist Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey.
            But she has no plans to get those “betrayed” citizens involved in picking or removing judges.
            “When I go out to New Bedford or Holyoke,” she says, “and I speak to communities plagued by gang violence, what I hear is that people feel betrayed by the judiciary.” She said this is particularly true with police officers “who put their lives at risk to make arrests, and the judges put these folks right back out on the streets.”
            Meanwhile, an ultra-feminist columnist at the Globe, Eileen McNamara, took issue with Healey yesterday. The contest between the two extreme feminists was started after a judge in Worcester County earlier this month allowed a serial rapist of children to “walk” without further jail time after he fled to Florida while on parole.    
            Neither feminist wants the citizens directly involved in electing judges. Instead, Healey would amend the state Constitution to replace lifetime judicial tenure with seven-year terms, according to the Globe columnist, renewable only upon approval of a committee appointed by the governor. This would keep control of judges solidly on those in charge at Beacon Hill.
            According to columnist McNamara, Healey claims her aim is not to erode the independence of the judiciary but to ensure that every judge is evaluated periodically for ‘demeanor, legal ability, and any evidence of bias.’
            But the Globe columnist challenges: “Why create a new commission, unless the goal is to find an extrajudicial way to review unpopular judicial rulings? Wanting a mechanism in place to ensure that judges rule in a certain way sounds suspiciously like an erosion of judicial independence to me. Judges are not meant to bend with the political winds.
            “What Healey is proposing,” the Globe writer continues, “would have an inevitable chilling effect on judges, who would be asked by a panel of political appointees every seven years to justify their most controversial rulings. The duplicity we so often see in politicians, leery of taking a tough, unambiguous stand for fear of alienating some voters, we would see in those we ask to apply the law without fear or favor [judges].”
            Healey agrees that she is not in favor of giving more power to the citizens, only to her and others on Beacon Hill. (She is currently running to become Governor.) "I am not suggesting the election of judges; this is really a very moderate measure," she says about her proposed Judicial Evaluation Commission.
            Even if elected Governor, Healey could not accomplish what she is proposing. That would require an amendment to the state Constitution with the approval of the legislature and the voters.
            It’s clear that the establishment does not want any power given to the voters. The Boston Globe has not even reported the judge’s ruling in Worcester, apparently out of fear that if the public learns of it, this would cause another brouhaha like Judge Maria Lopez did a few years ago. The Globe knows about the matter because it reported on June 7, 2005 when the rapist was captured in Florida.

Can We Ever Become Like the Other States?
            Massachusetts is the worst state in the nation to give any power to citizens. Only 11 of the fifty states grant life tenure to trial judges like Judge McCann, according to the well respected National Center for State Courts. We are the worst state in the nation as far as empowering the citizens to have any control at all over their judges.
            What Other States Do According to Center for State Courts?
            A total of 39 states hold elections for their trial judges — whether partisan, nonpartisan, or uncontested retention elections. The breakdown of selection systems for trial courts of general jurisdiction is as follows:

- Eight (8) states have partisan elections for all general jurisdiction trial court judges (AL, IL, LA, NY, PA, TN, TX, WV; )

·  Twenty (20) states have nonpartisan elections for all general jurisdiction trial court judges (AR, CA, FL, GA, ID, KY, MD, MI, MN, MS, MT, NV, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, SD, WA, WI)

·  Seven (7) states have uncontested retention elections for all general jurisdiction trial courts (AK, CO, IA, NE, NM, UT, WY; )

·  Four (4) states use different types of elections—partisan, nonpartisan, or

retention—for general jurisdiction trial courts in different counties or judicial districts (AZ, IN, KS, MO)

·  Eleven (11) states grant life tenure or use reappointment of some type for all general jurisdiction trial courts (CT, DE, HI, ME, MA, NH, NJ, RI, SC, VT, VA).

            Although Massachusetts is listed in the catchall group of eleven, almost all of the eleven listed have a strict procedure that must be followed in choosing a new judge with lifetime tenure. In addition, the vast majority of states hold elections for their trial judges, including the very liberal states of California and New York.
            Every system requires the watchful eye of the voters, particularly that of electing them. But at least, there is some control by the voters.