CHEYENNE —The latest target of the right-wing Freedom Caucus appears to be the Wyoming Supreme Court.
This attack on the courts is a national political effort to combat what this group regards as judicial overreach. You see it embraced in states with hard right-wing majorities, like Wyoming.
The Wyoming Freedom Caucus has the state’s high court in its sights as the result of its recent ruling striking down anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional.
In a closed-door meeting at the Capitol, the members tossed around the idea of a bill to reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from five to three, according to published accounts.
I would assume their retaliation plan would included a cut in the court’s budget.
Further, I would expect a movement to totally re-reform the court system, taking it back to more than 50 years ago when judges were elected like mayors or council members, and campaigned with the rest of the politicians.
The Legislature’s adoption of the so-called Missouri Plan in 1971 resulted from the belief that judges should be kept out of politics as much as possible.
This new idea did that through a merit plan where the judges are on the ballot for retention in office, but are not allowed to campaign except in unusual cases.
That same year the Legislature increased the number of justices on the Supreme Court from three to five. The purpose was to have more hands to deal with the court’s caseload and to allow more different viewpoints. It also would prevent the influence of a small ideologically-aligned group that was possible with only three justices.
Critics don’t like the secrecy of the selection process, which introduces politics through the governor’s power to select a judge from a list of three finalists compiled by a commission.
The names of the three finalists are made public, but not those on the original list of petitions or applications.
Few judges have failed the retention ballot test, and then only if the lawyers oppose them.
Although it isn’t perfect, the plan has survived for 55 years, with generally good results.
It would be a shame to see it junked as revenge for the court decision in an abortion law case.
Yet the impetus for these regressive ideas is to punish the court for ruling that anti-abortion laws passed by the Legislature were contrary to the Constitution’s language on people’s rights to decide their health care.
Those rights were embodied in an amendment passed overwhelmingly by voters in the 2012 general election.
The Republican-dominated Legislature chose that language in the 2011 budget session as a rebuff to the hated Affordable Care Act.
Ironically, the Supreme Court ruled that “health care” in that law applies to abortions. Those abortion laws make it difficult for a woman to make health care decisions, and therefore are unconstitutional.
The decision set off an uproar among legislators and others who oppose abortions.
One the surprising aspects in this drama is the disagreement among lawyers over the decision.
One Cheyenne lawyer in an opinion piece in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle accused the Supreme Court of judicial activism, while others in various news outlets picked at the reasoning behind the decision.
Still others welcomed the ruling.
The lawmakers will get another shot at getting those already passed abortion-banning laws to go into effect.
Whatever wording they select, the final decision on abortion will come from the voters.
That will not be a slam dunk.
Previous polls show a majority of Wyoming voters are pro-choice.
Joan Barron can be reached at 307-632-2534 or jmbarron@bresnan.net
