BALTIMORE — A judicial reform workgroup has recommended that the state adopt a constitutional amendment to end contested elections for circuit court judges to increase accountability and diversity on the bench.

“The Workgroup repeatedly heard that voters are ill-informed about the judges for whom they are currently casting a ballot,” the July report from the Maryland Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections reads. “This allows for such decisions to be made on non-meritorious considerations such as ballot placement and fundraising capacity.”

The Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections published a study in July after examining nationwide methods of selecting and retaining trial judges who reflect the community they serve.

As of April 30, 2024, there were 312 appointed judges in Maryland courts — 65% of whom are white, 30% are Black, 2% are Asian or Pacific Islanders and 2% are Latino. More than half of Maryland judges, 51%, are women.

An analysis of 2020 census data included in the report reflects that the Maryland Judiciary “generally reflects the racial, ethnic and gender distribution of the Maryland population,” though “the diversity of the statewide numbers is not reflected in smaller counties.”

Maryland has 175 judicial positions in the circuit court system, which oversees jury trials. As of April 30, there were six vacancies, and the filled positions were 63% white, 30% Black and 2% Latino.

According to the report, only 14 challengers out of 34 to sitting circuit court judges have won their elections since 1985.

“Improvement is needed, and the importance of recruiting minority candidates throughout the state is critical,” the report reads.

There are currently contested races for circuit court bench seats in Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties this election cycle.

Thomas F. Casey, an attorney running for a contested judgeship in Anne Arundel County, told The Baltimore Sun in an interview Tuesday that he applied to be a district court judge but was not appointed. He said he has been reaching out to local consortiums of Democrats and Republicans and has held events to educate the public about his campaign.

However, Casey said he is not concerned about the public being able to make informed decisions about potential judges at the polls.

“The general public are selected for jury trials. We trust them with the ability to understand what goes on in a court of law,” said Casey. “Certainly they’re qualified to get educated on the election process.”

While he said it’s “a high bar” to unseat a sitting judge, Casey also said it’s a part of the process that attorneys must understand and accept when they choose to run.

“I think it’s fair on its face. The sitting judges have the opportunity to speak to the people who come before them each week” on juries, he said, “and they have a lot of the backing of the defense bar, but I think that’s fair.”

After eight meetings and a public hearing, the Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections put forth three recommendations.

They suggest maintaining the appointment of judges by the governor and reforming judicial nominating commissions created under gubernatorial executive orders, but recommend implementing a code of conduct to increase “public trust, impartiality, and a fair, ethical process,” and elevating transparency in the vetting process by including input from the public and specialty bars.

The group forwarded the recommendation relating to judicial nominating commissions to Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, before he issued an executive order establishing judicial nominating commissions in March 2023. According to the report, Moore adopted the majority of the recommendation.

The workgroup also recommends that the retention elections used for appellate court judges also be implemented for circuit court judges. This must be done through a constitutional amendment that would eliminate contested judicial elections for the circuit court, reduce terms for circuit court judges from 15 to 10 years, allow for retention elections, and require the Maryland Senate to hold confirmation hearings after initial appointments and at the end of each judge’s 10-year term.

Senate confirmations are currently required for appellate and district court judges.

“It is critical that retention elections become meaningful,” the report says.

According to the report, the Maryland legislature has previously considered amending the state constitution to eliminate contested judicial elections, but those efforts were unsuccessful for judges in the circuit court.

“The report is convincing,” Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Vice Chair Jeff Waldstreicher, a Montgomery County Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday.

The legislation to put the question to amend the Maryland Constitution would likely go before Waldstreicher’s committee should it be brought before the General Assembly.

“It shows definitively that we can both eliminate contested judicial elections and increase diversity on the bench,” he said.

Though not in its purview, the Workgroup to Study Judicial Selections also suggests that the policy advisory board for the chief justice of the Maryland Supreme Court study judicial performance evaluations for accountability purposes, including what entity would be responsible for administering the evaluations, the topics covered, the cost of administering them, and if they should be made available to the public to make informed decisions during retention elections.

_______

©2024 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.