CT Editorial: Probate Judges Should Be Appointed

Several years ago, a proposal was put forth to consolidate the state’s probate court system, a controversial plan that drew sharp criticism from those within the system and considerable pressure on lawmakers from those unwilling to give up their turf.

But the handwriting was on the wall. Once parts of a self-sustaining system, the courts were losing money and the state could no longer afford the tens of millions of dollars needed each year to bail it out. It took two years to clear the Legislature, but the reforms were enacted and the consolidation from 117 districts to 54 took effect in January.

It was the right decision, and it has paid off. For the first time in six years, the state’s probate court system will not only end the fiscal year on June 30 in the black, but will also return more than $5 million to the state.

Selection process
As we noted in an editorial last year, it’s time to take the next step in reforming the court system by changing the manner in which probate judges are selected.

Probate judges are elected to four-year terms, which means they solicit contributions to run election campaigns every four years.

We believe probate judges should be appointed, not elected, and undergo the same rigorous vetting process used for all judges in our judicial system. The responsibilities of probate judges are far too important and sensitive to continue the practice of subjecting them to a political process in which the potential for inappropriate influence can arise.

Probate courts are responsible for more than just the administration of wills. These courts are responsible for adoptions, custody, visitation and other child care issues; guardianship for the mentally ill, the disabled and elderly; and making critical health care decisions for those unable to take care of themselves.

Full Article and Source:
Our View: Probate Judges Should be Appointed