Circuit Court Judges

W hen it comes to our judiciary, impartiality has always been Marylanders' chief concern. Unfortunately, that value is threatened by the current practice of contested elections for circuit court judges, which exposes judges to influence peddling, bias and political whim. Money is often a favored tool of partisan influence, and Maryland's candidates for circuit court judgeships received an estimated $3.9 million in contributions between Jan. 1, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2006, a figure that will only grow in future contested elections.

How's this for a system to select circuit court judges who will preside and rule on virtually every significant legal matter that will arise in your community, including civil disputes involving businesses, nonprofits, private individuals and government operations? First, when a circuit court vacancy occurs, Maryland's highest elected official — the governor — reviews lists of recommended candidates vetted by judicial nominating committees, made up of lawyers and non-lawyers, in the county where the vacancy exists.

THE FOUNDERS of this country were wise enough to know that by establishing three co-equal branches of government they were also creating an inherent tension. That is evident in current discussions on ways to hold Maryland judges accountable for their performance.A commission charged with studying Maryland's courts and suggesting ways to improve them is poised to make some important recommendations for achieving that fine balance between respect for an independent judiciary and assurances to the public that judges are held accountable for their performance.

Whether Arthur M. Frank becomes a Circuit Court judge is up to Baltimore County voters, but he has already established a precedent. He's the first political candidate to be chastised for unethical conduct by the Maryland Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee, a nonprofit, bipartisan group that is trying to enforce a voluntary code for would-be and incumbent judges running for office. The incident should reinforce public skepticism over how Maryland selects Circuit Court judges. Mr. Frank, 50, is one of six candidates running for four seats on the Baltimore County bench.

In the increasingly unpredictable world of the 1998 elections, here's one sure bet: Patricia C. Jessamy will remain in office as Baltimore's top prosecutor.That's because no one signed up by Monday night's filing deadline to oppose Jessamy in either the Democratic primary or November's general election.Jessamy -- a longtime deputy who was appointed city state's attorney in 1995 after her boss got a high-level state job -- said she was "very pleased" to have a clear path in her first election.

With four judicial vacancies looming in Baltimore County, Gov. Parris N. Glendening told much of the county's legal establishment yesterday that diversity remains a top priority for him in appointments. Speaking at the swearing-in ceremony for District Judge Nancy Cohen, Glendening told an audience made up largely of the county's District and Circuit Court judges that the county's record of minority judicial appointments was "unacceptable." "On the county's District Court, before my appointments, the bench had only two women out of 13 judges and only one African-American.

ANNAPOLIS -- Carroll Del. Richard N. Dixon has proposed for the second straight year that all Maryland judges be elected, not appointed."Recently, I heard a judge mention that he or she had no boss," the District 5A Democrat told the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing yesterday.That is not right, he said, because the voters "are over all" government officials.Mr. Dixon has submitted legislation that would require district, circuit and appellate judges to be elected for six-year terms.

IN JUST ITS FIRST year, Baltimore's Early Disposition Court has devolved into an embarrassing joke. Criminals thumb their noses at the low-ball sentences prosecutors offer in the court, knowing that postponements lead to even better deals - or outright acquittals. Meanwhile, Circuit Court judges are unwittingly helping criminals play the postponement game. In June, those judges undercut the prosecutors' sentencing recommendations in 92 percent of cases, according to data compiled by the state's attorney's office.