Recent news articles reported that some legislators want to change how Wyoming chooses judges from a merit-based process to an elected one. This proposal is difficult to understand because, frankly, our process works very well. It is merit-based, takes input from both legal professionals and community representatives, and removes bias and partisan leanings from the selection criteria. The only reason to change our process would be to create a new system that is not based on merit but is instead based on something else. This is a bad idea and would result in a worse, less professional judiciary.
Opinion
Wyoming’s judicial selection process works well precisely because it is merit-based. Under the Wyoming Constitution, the governor is limited in who he can appoint to the bench. A judicial nominating committee, consisting of both practicing attorneys and public representatives, is responsible for collecting applications, interviewing potential judges and forwarding a list of three names for each judicial vacancy to the governor. There is no campaigning and no partisanship when it comes to the selection of judges. Our constitution purposefully excludes political considerations from the process. It recognizes that judges must be independent of those pressures and features a system specifically designed to find the most qualified candidates.
The proposed changes would do away with the benefits of our existing system and introduce a far worse one. In fact, the proposed changes would revert to a system that was already abandoned as being inferior to the one we currently operate under. Approximately 50years ago, Wyoming citizens amended our state constitution to do away with judicial elections and instead adopted the merit-based system described above.
The most difficult thing to understand about this proposal is the “why.” Our judges do good work and our selection process has produced quality nominees. The only reason that has been raised to justify a change is that certain legislators dislike certain recent rulings. They believe they can obtain judgments more favorable to their preferences if judges have to campaign for election. Simply put, they want to reduce the independence of the judiciary and make judges more political.
Asking judges to run for election is a bad idea for several reasons. The most apparent is the potential for conflicts of interest. Elections cost money. If we ask judges to run for election, they will have to ask others for political donations to fund those campaigns. The potential for conflict in these situations is obvious. Judges may feel that they owe something to those who contributed to their campaigns, or those appearing before them may feel that they have better odds of prevailing should they contribute to the judge’s campaign fund. It is common to hear stories from states with judicial elections of judges calling attorneys for contributions, or of attorneys speculating on who gave the judge the largest donation and therefore has the upper hand in the lawsuit. Even if baseless, these questions undermine confidence in the judiciary and its impartiality.
Further, campaigns take time and many otherwise qualified people do not want to go through the time and expense of a political campaign. Asking judges to campaign for office necessarily requires that they take time that they may have otherwise spent working on cases and instead spend that time acting like a political candidate. This would likely result in both a slowdown in judicial work during election season and a reduction in the number of qualified people willing to undertake the role. Again, our system is made worse, not better, by this proposal.
It is important to remember that the vast majority of cases are not the headline-grabbing decisions that we hear about most. Judges spend their days on criminal matters, large and small, divorces, custody cases, business disputes, personal injury lawsuits, probate hearings and countless other matters that are necessary for our world to operate. That is the real work of our judicial system. We should not ignore the need for quality judges to decide these cases.
Simply put, our system for selecting judges works. We should not change it. Our judges are selected by merit for their abilities and political considerations are kept out of the process. That is as it should be. We must have confidence in our judicial branch to be able to decide disputes without worrying about whether their decisions would hurt a potential reelection campaign. Judges are insulated from these outside pressures for a reason, and we should continue to uphold that protection. Let’s hope that our Legislature recognizes the importance of an independent judiciary and spends its time tackling the real issues Wyoming faces.
If the parts of government, legislative, judicial and executive branches are thought of being the legs of a 3 legged stool then a collapse could occur if one branch of the government overbalances the other two branches.
Wyoming’s selection of judges should not be messed with as it has worked out well for the state the way it occurs now.
Well stated but not following the freedom caucus is like poking a grizzly bear with a 3 foot stick.
Well done, Khale,
We are the envy of states that elect judges. The horror stories we hear from out of state lawyers are indeed frightening. The Freedom Caucus needs to think about the consequences of having a conflicted judiciary (i.e. politicians on the bench) — someone may outbid you for a judge’s favors. You may not like the result.
I think evidence suggests that encouraging thoughtful action on the part of the Republican Party is naive. Let’s call a spade a spade – current GOP agenda is a political power grab for the Christian Nationalist Caliphate (tip of the hat to the wordsmith who named them!). The efforts to consolidate power are obvious – restrict voting participation; intimidate, discredit and harass non-believers (remember the RINO campaign?); diminish and take away individual rights and choices; name imaginary enemies and problems, and proclaim to be the agent of simple remedy; shout to control press and judiciary. Realistically It seems important to try, in as many ways possible, to thwart the success of this power grab. However, community values that could have been associated with Republicans in the past – for example consideration and reasonable accommodation of fellow citizens with divergent views – do not appear vital at present. Therefore appealing to the better judgement of the Republican Party is highly unlikely to have any impact. That’s like asking the Taliban to let women work outside the home and without the supervision of a male relative. . . . Won’t change their world view and agenda.
Thank you, Dennis. Well stated.
Khale, although I fully agree with your sentiment about why WY’s judicial selection process needs to remain in place, you are a former Republican Party chairman. You built this monstrosity. You made this possible. It is your work and your undermining of our institutions that pulled the politicization of our judiciary out of the 4Chan abyss and into mainstream. Khale created the mess and is now asking ~30% of WY’s citizens to somehow clean it up. “Hey WY, I shot your child in the chest. Anyone without a red hat should get off their backsides and dress the wound, treat for shock, call 911, do something. I’ve already done my part, the rest is on you.”
Great article Khale. Well done.
MAGA and the Freedom Caucus spend more time creating, then exaggerating problems that don’t exist, than they do working on legitimate issues that people in this state and country face everyday. The judicial system is the only thing that is working properly and holding them at bay presently. It certainly isn’t our representatives…and I use that term very loosely in refering to our three in Washington and the freedom caucus in the Wyoming legislature.
We need more individuals like our judges in legislative office right now who have the ability to think independently and thoughtfully about issues that are before them, without being beholden to one party or faction.
Thanks again for your piece Khale. Keep them coming.
In Wyoming, we already have a process that allows voters to weigh in on judges—and that’s judicial retention. Thank you for explaining how it works here; you did a great job clarifying it for readers.
What the Freedom Caucus is proposing would take us down a very different path—one that recently played out in Wisconsin. There, the state Supreme Court election became a national political battleground. Elon Musk poured $1 million into the race, explicitly stating he was motivated by redistricting concerns and the potential loss of Republican congressional seats if Democrats gained control of the court. (NPR, March 31, 2025)
Is that what we want for Wyoming? Out-of-state billionaires using our courts as political pawns?
I urge Wyoming voters to reject the Freedom Caucus’s proposal. Let’s protect the integrity of our judicial system and keep it free from partisan influence.
SO WELL PUT MR. LENHART! I wish however, that you had also expounded a bit on the purpose of the judiciary as it appears so many are ignorant of the fact that they are there to interpret the law and the constitution, NOT tell them what they want to hear. I feel sure you would say it more eloquently.
Hey, in rightwingville you change judges when they don’t line up to the goofballs. Then you build fake christian charter schools to brainwash the youngins.