According to First District Court Trial Court Administrator Karlene Behringer’s press release sent Monday, June 16th at 6:21 PM, the six finalists for the Magistrate Judge vacancy will be interviewed on Thursday, June 19th at 9 AM. The six finalists are identified in the press release and include applicants from Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Rathdrum, and Orlando, Florida.
The interviews conducted by the Magistrate Commission will be open to the public, however the deliberations by the Commission will not.
Our call to Karlene Behringer with some questions about the process has not been returned.
Our OpenCdA post entitled Selecting a New Magistrate Judge posted on May 29th identified the members of the Magistrate Commission who will be conducting the interviews. It also linked to the local skewspaper’s article identifying the 17 original candidates.
Yes, it would be nice to know how they narrowed it down to the 6 finalists. You might want to contact:
Idaho Supreme Court
Attn: Patricia Tobias
Administrative Director of the Courts
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0101
Phone or Fax:
P: (208) 334-2246 | F: (208) 947-7590
I do not always agree with this woman, but she can make things happen. And, she has a vested interest. One of the finalists is from Ada County. She should know.
But, nevertheless, it begs the obvious question. Out of all the finalists from District 1 – (four of them) which one do you think they will pick?
It does not really matter, we are so out of the loop. Until the law is changed that allows the appointments of judges to the bench, we really will never have much of a say concerning our judicial leadership.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 17, 2014 @ 6:09 pm
Stebbijo,
Having lived in Idaho for 14 years now, I have become cynical and skeptical about the process used to select judges and justices, particularly but not exclusively in the First Judicial District in Idaho. My career exposed me to several good federal and state judges (and a few bad ones) in various jurisdictions, so I have some basis for comparison. The First Judicial District in Idaho seems to have a disproportionate number of dead-ender judges, judges whose judicial careers have gone one step higher than their professional abilities should have taken them.
Judicial politics was the topic of this brief and readable Louisiana (!) Law Review article entitled Ruminations of a Trial Lawyer on Judicial Politics: An Essay in Memory of Judge Earl E. Veron by J. Michael Veron.
Comment by Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 7:26 am
Thank you, Bill.
Having lived here in Idaho way too long, I am more than skeptical and cynical. I do not expect justice in this state. It is bought.
I read the article briefly. I am going to bookmark and read it again, but I enjoyed it and it stimulated my pea brain. Interesting that during the time the article was written Louisiana citizens preferred a jury trial even though their judges are elected. Another interesting observation concerned the knowledge a judge possesses concerning the “rules” and how they are applied to the case to determine how a case is tried or if in fact it will turn into a kangaroo court room. A knowledgeable judge can control the case through this knowledge and if the judge does not possess the knowledge, the lawyers will ultimately take over the ball game. Additionally, politics and law are two separate entities, thus it is imperative that a good judge know the “rules” of the game, so to speak.
Good judges independently reason through the rules to reach blind outcomes rather than manipulate the rules to reach foreordained outcomes. Of course, this is not as simple as it may seem. The process of rule application demands clarity of thought, intellectual honesty, scholarship, and an apolitical mindset. A good judge has no agenda other than rule application.
Which brings me back to the “rules” pertaining to Idaho.
First, I thought it would be an interesting project to research the magistrate laws and how they were formed. That information is not readily available, but the statutes are, so while I was digging around, I noticed this in the statute you cited. Our Magistrate Commission is extremely powerful if they even know what they are doing, Idaho Code, Title 1, Chapter 22. Note this excerpt:
(c) To conduct studies for the improvement of the administration of justice within the district and to make recommendations for improvements therein to the legislature, the supreme court, the district court and such other governmental agencies as may be interested in or affected by such recommendations.
However, back to the rules. I decided to take another look to see if any of those “rules” applied to the Magistrate process on the Idaho Supreme Court website. There are some rules which are part of the Idaho Court Administrative Rules section (a separate section for the judges only) that pertain to the removal and discipline of a Magistrate and how evidence is handled if they have to leave, but that is all I could find – so they may be there, I just could not find them.
Additionally, I also noticed the “pilot project” concerning family law and the “rules” that have now been accepted statewide, initiated in (District 4, I believe) and will go into effect next year, but it can happen sooner if the Administrative Judge in any district decides to abide by the new process. http://www.isc.idaho.gov/recent-amendments
I discovered this a while ago, our District I was part of a “pilot project” concerning the “rules” many years ago regarding family law. Who are these people practicing on, what Court cases are effected? Do the parties know? How are rule changes determined or applied and to what scenario? Those rule changes in District I actually were applied to the statutes concerning evidence. I was a bit taken back that this kind of power existed that allows for the tampering of our statutes pertaining to “evidence” existed. Without any public input at that time, the judicial committees literally created the ability to ignore this portion of our law as well as hold the Court harmless of any outcome.
By question, then to myself was, who approves of these pilot projects to change the judicial system? Is it just a handful of people, like our Magistrate Commission? But, like, I said, I could not find anything in the “rules” but it is in the statutes. The Supreme Court initiates rule changes through their committees via “recommendations,” I believe.
I entertain the thought that our Legislature might consider an “election” process regarding our judges and what might happen if they did. Maybe nothing would get done and that might be a good thing.
We now possess the power as citizens to reply to any rule changes, but seriously, what layperson has the time to watchdog our judicial system to this extent? We are supposed to trust them. So, when a Magistrate Commission decides to interview only 6 of the candidates – where is that process documented? Must be part of the “recommendations” rhetoric in that statute and, can the public enlist the Magistrate [Commission] to get something done in the Legislature? The Magistrate Commission to District I is not what I call readily available public information. It’s like pulling teeth from a mule’s mouth to get it, so to speak. But, this is Idaho – full of mules and spuds.
Comment by Stebbijo — June 18, 2014 @ 7:48 pm