In the wake of the two most expensive and divisive Michigan Supreme Court elections in history, a new task force made up of prominent current and former judges, activists and officials plans to examine the way the state selects judges and recommend possible changes.

The Detroit Free Press reports:

A collection of veteran judges, lawyers and activists plans to announce today the launch of a yearlong project to identify failings in the way Michigan selects its top judges and make proposals for reform.

The 24-member task force will be led by Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ryan. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be the honorary chairwoman.

Kelly, in an interview with the Free Press on Monday, said the task force will operate “without preconceptions,” but will be aimed at addressing any potential threat to judicial independence posed by the influence of politics and money in judicial elections. The task force will be announced at Wayne State University.

Kelly said she believes the nasty tenor and intensity of high-priced judicial campaigns, such as the recently concluded Supreme Court race, undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Michigan is one of 37 states that elect judges by popular ballot just like legislators. Which prompts the obvious argument against any changes to that system:

Dan Pero, the former chief of staff to Gov. John Engler who heads the American Justice Partnership, said the O’Connor-Kelly-Ryan task force is the latest anti-democratic assault on judicial election by “liberal elites who think they should be the ones to decide who sits on the bench.”

By that reasoning, of course, the Founding Fathers themselves were “liberal elites” engaged in an “anti-democratic assault on judicial election.” The U.S. Constitution does not allow the election of judges at the federal level, opting instead for nomination by the president and confirmation by the senate. And once appointed, federal judges have lifetime tenure.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 78, explained and defended that manner of selecting judges. He argued that selection with lifetime tenure was far superior to either temporary selection or election because judges must be insulated from the influence of public opinion in order to be impartial:

Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.