Tennessee gets C- on Judicial Accountability Report Card

June 19, 2008

HALT, Inc., a legal reform organization based in Washington, D.C., says Tennessee placed 31st in the nation in a study that looked at the accountability of state and federal judges, according to spokeswoman Rachel Decker.

The study criticized Tennessee's judicial discipline boards, which primarily are comprised of judges and attorneys rather than ordinary citizens, and found fault with allowing "dysfunctional judges" to receive "private admonishment" because it keeps the public in the dark about any misconduct, Decker said in the release.

HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder noted that lawyers and judges outnumber the average citizen by a two-to-one margin on Tennessee's Court of the Judiciary. "Stacking the Court with lawyers and judges sends the message that the system is of the judges, by the judges and for the judges," Blonder said. "It certainly invites public suspicion about whether the process is impartial."

HALT also cited Tennessee's lack of "meaningful limitations" on what judges may receive in connection with corporate and special interest trips. "Tennessee's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," Blonder said.

Despite the faults that found Tennessee ranked 31st in the nation, HALT found favor with the state for allowing citizens to voice their complaints against judges. "To protect citizens' right to free speech and ensure that the disciplinary process is working as it should, states should follow Tennessee's example and allow individuals to speak publicly about a judge's misconduct," Blonder said.

The release said none of the top five states identified in the study - Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California - earned higher than a B average. Tennessee was among more than half of the states to receive C grades, while D's were given to 14 jurisdictions. Maine and Mississippi failed altogether.