A solid field of applicants vied for Idaho’s new 1st District Court judge position, created by the 2006 Legislature.

One of the nine was a former Coeur d’Alene City Council member. Another helped Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Norm Gissel of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations bankrupt the Aryan Nations in a Kootenai County civil case. Another was the prosecuting attorney for Boundary County and a 2002 1st District Court judicial candidate. Still another was the chief deputy prosecutor of Kootenai County.

After scrutiny by the court’s judicial council, three of the applicants made the finalist list sent to Idaho Gov. Jim Risch, who will select the new judge. They are Ken Howard, Lansing Haynes and Scott Wayman.

Some say an appointive process, presided over by judges and attorneys, is the best way to seat judges. They argue that legal professionals are in a better position than voters in Idaho and Washington to decide which prospects are best in races for the state Supreme Courts and lower courts. Others say the appointive system favors insiders or political partisans. They contend that an election contest forces incumbents to defend their records and venture from their courtrooms to meet the public.

Both sides offer compelling arguments. So, why not keep both?

A good hybrid system has evolved in Idaho and Washington that requires judges to run for election or retention but offers room for candidates to gain a seat – and, admittedly, an advantage – by appointment before seeking election. For years, retiring Idaho Supreme Court judges stepped down early to allow groups of judges, attorneys and the governor pick their successors, who then often ran unopposed in the next general election.

Former Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak won her spot that way when she was appointed to the Idaho Supreme Court by then-Gov. Cecil Andrus in 1993 and defeated Wayne Kidwell the following year to win a six-year term. When she was easily defeated by conservative 4th District Court Judge Daniel Eismann in 2000, supporters cried foul, claiming Eismann had eschewed neutrality when he appeared at a Republican fundraiser in Idaho Falls. Some arrogantly demanded that the state discard the elective system for Supreme Court justices.

In other words, they wanted to keep average Idahoans from learning more about the men and women who would sit in judgment over them.

Most judges and attorneys avoid public scrutiny, if possible. That’s why nine candidates applied for appointment to the new District Court post, but only Coeur d’Alene attorney Rami Amaro had the gumption to challenge incumbent John Mitchell in a bruising election race during May’s Idaho primaries. Amaro deserves credit for spotlighting Mitchell’s weaknesses: a high rate of disqualifications and decisions overturned on appeal and a record that indicated he opted for treatment rather than stiff sentences in child molestation cases.

Mitchell won handily. But the scrutiny should make him a better judge.

The mixed system for selecting judges in Idaho and Washington isn’t broken. In fact, it combines the strengths of insider knowledge and public scrutiny.