Maryland judges and legal groups press lawmakers to end contested circuit-court elections, shift to appointments with retention votes

Chief Justice Fader told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Feb. 12 that Senate Bill 630 is intended to "increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary, minimizing perceived conflicts, and ensuring that every judge in the state has been thoroughly vetted and found most fully qualified by a neutral panel before taking office." He and a panel of judges, bar leaders and academics spoke for several hours in favor of replacing contested Maryland circuit-court elections with the same appointment-and-retention system now used for appellate judges: selection by a judicial nominating commission, appointment by the governor, confirmation by the state Senate and a 10‑year retention vote.

The bill, which grew out of a 22‑month work group, would change the current 15‑year circuit‑court terms to 10 years and make newly appointed circuit judges subject to Senate confirmation and to periodic retention elections rather than the contested, competitive votes they now face.

Why it matters: Proponents said contested judicial elections force sitting judges into political contests, create fundraising pressure from lawyers who appear before the bench, and expose judges and their families to security risks.

"Judges are not politicians," said Judge Cherise Simkins of Prince George’s County. "In order to retain our seats we must take time away from our already heavy caseloads … we are engaged in political contests that diminish the integrity of our judicial system." Circuit Court Judge Phoebe Berry described the disruption to court dockets when judges take extended leave to campaign. Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge James Rhodes testified about targeted, personal attacks in one recent contested race, saying "the safety, the integrity of all judges is at risk when we continue these contested elections."

Proponents summarized the proposed system and safeguards. Judge Kathleen DeMay, a co‑chair of the judiciary work group to study judicial selection, said the group had reviewed national models and academic research and recommended a package of changes—including clearer public access to judicial nominating commissions (JNCs), improved outreach to encourage diverse applicants, and training for commission members. "We want public input, and that's where some of the recommendations in the report talk about more public input at the JNC level," she said. Several witnesses testified that the JNCs should accept written public comment, hold open sessions and broaden the specialty‑bar representation that helps vet candidates.

Questions and concerns: Multiple senators raised concerns about concentrating appointment power in the governor and the Senate. Senator Henson asked how the shift would preserve checks and balances if the governor and the legislature were politically aligned; Chief Justice Fader replied that the proposed system still uses multilayered vetting—bar interviews, JNC review, gubernatorial vetting and Senate confirmation—and that contested elections do not guarantee voters better information. Senators pressed whether retention elections actually remove judges who underperform; committee members requested data on how often judges lose retention votes. Several proponents said they would provide statistics to the committee on retention election outcomes.

Diversity and politics: Opponents and some commentators warned that appointment systems can perpetuate exclusion if commissions or appointing authorities do not act to recruit and recommend diverse candidates. Judge DeMay and other witnesses said the work‑group recommendations include steps to broaden JNC composition and public involvement to counteract exclusionary practices. "We want the public to be educated about who is going to be on the ballot and who is going to be making these very critical decisions," she testified.

Support from legal and civic groups: The Maryland State Bar Association, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Common Cause Maryland and other organizations testified in favor of the bill or of the work‑group recommendations. Dean Donald Tobin and other legal academics described the fundraising and appearance‑of‑influence problems that arise in contested campaigns.

Opposition voices: Some former candidates and community advocates opposed elimination of contested elections, saying the existing option to run provides a direct check where appointment processes have failed to produce diversity. Rob Daniels of the LGBTQ Bar Association of Maryland said that in Baltimore County "we have never had an openly gay person appointed to the bench despite highly qualified candidates having applied" and that contested elections had in some cases been the only way to overcome exclusion. Other opponents, including several county judges who ran successfully in contested races, said the bill would remove a vital public voice and do little to fix problematic JNC practices.

Next steps: Committee members signaled they expect follow‑up: proponents promised data on the frequency with which judges lose retention elections and on JNC composition and practices; senators said they expected to consider JNC reforms and public education measures alongside any change to election structure. A hearing record and the work‑group report were submitted to the committee for further review.

Ending: With broad testimony on both sides, the bill remained under committee consideration after the hearing; no vote was recorded at the Feb. 12 session. The debate highlighted tensions between insulating the bench from partisan pressures and preserving direct public checks where appointment systems have failed to produce the desired diversity or responsiveness.