Deal must make a stronger case for court change

Gov. Nathan Deal wants to make a fundamental change in a Georgia Supreme Court that has operated in its current seven-member configuration for 70 years. A 1983 constitutional revision made a nine-justice court possible, but in the more than three decades since, state executive and legislative branches dominated by both parties have left the judicial branch alone.

The obvious question involves why Deal wants to change it now.

The governor's own answer is population: "As our state continues to grow," he told an Atlanta reporter, "the demands of the court also grow. And we have to keep up with that."

It would be instructive to hear some of the justices themselves address that rationale. Population growth is a reason for changes in legislative representation, and even for more judicial districts or more district judges to handle caseloads. (The last legislature increased appeals court judgeships from 12 to 15.) But how it suggests a need for two more bodies on the state Supreme Court is dubious at best.

The chairs of the respective legislative chambers' judiciary committees, one the junior senator from Columbus and both members of Deal's own party, are not rushing to embrace the idea.

Rep. Wendell Willard, R-Sandy Springs, said he was "trying to understand where the need is." Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, said he is "certainly not against it, but I want to see some numbers to see what the justification is."

Jim Galloway, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Political Insider" columnist, writes that many observers believe there's another reason, one with ample historical precedent: Deal wants long-term high court protection for Republican rule in a demographically changing state.

The judicial math would work in his favor. Deal has already made one appointment, and two other justices will retire during his term. That makes three; the addition of two more justices would almost certainly give Republicans a majority on a nine-judge court.

Although Georgia justices must run for election (or reelection) on nonpartisan ballots, their elevation to the court, whether initially by election or appointment, has generally been a full-time career. (Just check the record.) And even in a nonpartisan race, a candidate's sympathies, philosophy and agenda can reasonably be inferred from his or her backers and contributors.

There's certainly nothing new, and usually nothing wrong, with overtly political appointments to the bench, whether by governors or presidents. Indeed, many such appointments have turned out to be historic, in every positive sense of that word.

But what Deal is proposing is a change not just in the personnel of the court, but in its very structure. For that, politics isn't a good enough reason, and population doesn't sound like a reason at all.

This story was originally published October 10, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Deal must make a stronger case for court change."