‘Fundamentally bad’: Critics say new Idaho bill would hamper courts

BOISE – Voting for judges might be the least exciting part of an election, but a new bill targeting judgeships is creating controversy.

Sen. Phil Hart, R-Kellogg, presented a bill Wednesday that would block people who are appointed to fill a judicial vacancy from running for that seat in the following election. The legislation would apply to appeals court judges, Idaho Supreme Court justices and district judges.

Those appointed to a position could be on the ballot after skipping the first election coming after their appointment, Hart said.

“If you’re an incumbent judge, you’re virtually guaranteed to be re-elected,” Hart told the Senate State Affairs committee. “Is this the best solution for this problem? I don’t know. It is a solution.”

Idaho judges, including the Supreme Court justices, are elected in nonpartisan races. When there are vacancies, the work of the court can’t be put on hold, according to the Idaho Judicial Branch, so the governor selects someone from a list of people vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council.

Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, and the State of Idaho Judicial Branch pushed back on Hart’s idea.

However, all but two members of the Senate State Affairs committee (Ruchti and Sen. Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs) voted to introduce the bill.

Nate Poppino, Idaho courts spokesperson, wrote in an email to the Idaho Statesman that the court system appreciates Hart’s interest “in maintaining a judiciary that represents Idahoans.” But he said the bill would make attorneys uninterested in filling vacancies, meaning judgeships would “sit empty for longer.”

“We have serious concerns about delays the people of Idaho would face in having their cases resolved as a result of this approach,” Poppino wrote. “Cases may languish in the absence of a judge available to hear them.”

Ruchti echoed that, arguing that people who become judges give up profitable private practices or other jobs for a pay cut to do public service. People wouldn’t want to make a financial sacrifice to be a judge for a few months or even a couple of years, knowing they could not run for that position when the next election comes around.

“I think this would be such a fundamentally bad piece of policy,” Ruchti said. “You would get virtually no judges to put their name in.”

The bill next awaits a hearing in a Senate committee.