It may not be obvious at first glance, but nominating and confirming judges is one of the most important responsibilities of the Governor’s Office and the General Assembly.
Despite significant media attention on federal courts, over 90 percent of legal cases are heard in state courts. Through involvement in everything from housing, criminal cases, personal injuries, business disputes, employment, and everything in between, these judges have incredible influence over the people of the state, but the process of selecting them is largely opaque to the public.
The General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee recently passed H.B. 5380, which would make some welcome changes to the judicial selection process, including increased reporting requirements on the backgrounds of who is applying and being approved for judgeships, as well as requiring rejected applicants to receive written reasons for their rejections and the opportunity to appeal.
However, along with these positive developments, the bill would also strip several non-lawyer Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) seats and hand them to lawyers, which would increase the insularity of the process and eliminate an important source of diversity of thought and general public input from these crucial decisions.
The JSC provides the first screening of potential judges before they are eligible for appointment by the governor, and its inclusion of non-lawyer members is not a mere formality — it is a deliberate recognition of the importance of diverse perspectives in the judicial selection process. These individuals bring invaluable insights from their respective fields, representing the broader community’s interests and concerns. Their participation ensures that the commission’s decisions are informed by a multifaceted understanding of justice, rather than being confined within the legal bubble.
On its face, increasing the requirements for legal training on the JSC may seem reasonable. But while some legal knowledge is of course important in evaluating a candidate, it is not the sole determinant of a fair and effective judiciary. Judges do not operate in a vacuum, and whatever the pretensions of objectivity within the field, their views are influenced by the broader population and culture, and judicial nominations are ultimately political decisions. It would be odd to require a judicial screener to have intimate knowledge of the law when there is no such requirement for the legislators actually writing our laws — including this one.
You do not need a law degree to evaluate a person’s experience and temperament, or to confirm their statutory eligibility to hold office, and you certainly do not need ten years of legal practice to do so. In fact, non-partisan organizations across the ideological spectrum, including the Brennan Center, US Chamber of Commerce, and Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, all suggest that judicial selection commissions include a majority of non-lawyers. Some even call for the exclusion of practicing lawyers from commissions because of potential conflicts of interest. While we are not arguing for these particular requirements, Connecticut’s current balance of an evenly matched JSC seems to be ideal for our state.
Non-lawyer JSC members bring essential skills and experiences to the table, such as expertise in community advocacy, small business management, social justice work, and public service. These perspectives are indispensable for evaluating a candidate’s ability to understand and address the diverse needs of our communities. Removing non-lawyer members would result in a homogenized selection process, potentially sidelining candidates with backgrounds that could enrich the judiciary and enhance its connection to the people it serves.
In addition to providing crucial experience and community viewpoints, the presence of non-lawyer members serves as a check against the potential influence of legal elites and special interests within the commission. By diversifying the composition of the JSC, Connecticut ensures that judicial nominations are not monopolized by a narrow segment of society. This helps maintain public trust in the integrity and independence of our judiciary, which is essential for upholding the rule of law.
Judges must navigate complex social issues and understand the real-world implications of their decisions. Non-lawyer members bring this crucial perspective to the forefront, ensuring that the judiciary remains responsive to the needs and values of the people that it serves. Empirical studies have shown that more professionally diverse judiciaries lead to better outcomes for the people appearing before them, and this truth should be reflected in the composition of the body screening those judges in the first place.
For its other parts, H.B. 5380 is a very important bill for transparency in the judicial selection process and would make Connecticut a nationwide leader in public knowledge of and participation in judicial nominations. To ensure that the people have the proper say in who sits on our courts, the House should amend the bill to strike the section recomposing the JSC and focus only on bringing transparency and encouraging public comment on judicial nominations.
Removing non-lawyer members from the JSC would undermine the principles of diversity, inclusivity, and fairness that are vital to our judicial system’s legitimacy. Instead of limiting the voices on the commission, we should strive to enhance its inclusivity and ensure that it remains reflective of Connecticut’s rich tapestry of perspectives and experiences. Only then can we truly uphold the principles of justice for all and ensure a truly pro-people judiciary.
Steve Kennedy is Organizing and Network Director of the People’s Parity Project.