This editorial appears in the Sept. 17, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Too often when U.S. Supreme Court justices retire, they head off to write a memoir or seek seclusion.

Not retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court. She spends her time campaigning for an issue she believes would clean up the judicial process -- appointing judges through a merit-based system.

In this state, as is the case with about two dozen others, judges at every level are elected to the bench. In many instances, the governor will appoint a judge to fill a vacancy. It's also true that a majority of those appointed judges are unopposed when they seek re-election.

O'Connor argues the high costs of running for a judicial post threaten the independence of judges. That's why, she said, the nation's founding fathers preferred appointing federal judges to lifetime positions so their decisions from the bench would not be swayed by money or by popular sentiment. That changed in 1828 when President Andrew Jackson succeeded in giving states the choice to elect judges.

A system that O'Connor has championed would create a nonpartisan commission that would select judges based on their merit. After the appointed judge fills out his or her initial term, voters would then be allowed to decide whether to keep the judge on the bench.

We share O'Connor's concern that too much money is being spent on some judicial races, especially those seeking a position on the state's Supreme Court. And we also share her fear that these multimillion-dollar races do little to inform the voters.

Despite these shortcomings, we are unconvinced a merit-based appointment system is the way to go.

Lobbying by special interests will not suddenly cease to exist if a so-called nonpartisan commission is set up. The lobbying will just be directed at lawmakers and the governor, who will ultimately make the appointment. And what safeguards would there be to prevent unworthy judges, once they are on the bench, from essentially serving for life?

As for the concern over undue influence through campaign contributions, a positive solution may have presented itself through a ruling in June by O'Connor's former colleagues. The high court ruled that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create an appearance of bias.

This requirement could clear up many of the objections directed at the elective process. After all, organizations that wish to see "like minded" jurists elected might now think twice about big campaign donations if it means judges can't rule on cases important to them.

True, electing judges may not click on all cylinders, but we shouldn't be so quick to consider tossing the process into the scrap heap despite the eloquence that someone of O'Connor's stature brings to the debate.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.