FOREWORD: THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION

Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor*

The first few words of the First Amendment to the Constitution are deceptively simple: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The meaning of those sixteen words, however, has been a source of much debate – often intense and divisive – over the course of this Nation’s history.

Thus, as we approach the Bicentennial of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it is altogether fitting for the editors of the Journal of Law and Religion to devote this issue to a celebration and reaffirmation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Williams burg Charter on Religion and Public Life, in particular, stands as an articulate and emphatic call for civility in public discourse on religion and politics and for a renewed commitment to the enduring precepts underlying the Religion Clauses. That leaders from all walks of our society have joined together in this national compact is a testament not only to the diversity and pluralism that we celebrate, but also to the depth and strength of our Nation’s commitment to religious liberty. I applaud the efforts of the drafters of the Charter for their thoughtful contribution to our continuing national debate on this important topic.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause have had somewhat of a tortuous history in the Supreme Court. The Court’s jurisprudence in this

REFLECTIONS ON ARIZONA’S JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS

Sandra Day O’Connor* & RonNell Andersen Jones**

Using Arizona as a case study, this Essay examines the history of changes in state judicial-selection rationales, methods, and practices. It outlines Arizona’s journey from contested elections to a hybrid merit-selection system featuring appointments and retention elections, and compares this experience to that of states that have continued with a pure election system. The Essay explores the purported tension between judicial accountability and judicial independence and argues that Arizona’s experience demonstrates both the falsity of that dichotomy and the superiority of a hybrid merit-selection system in simultaneously promoting accountability, independence, competency, and fairness.

INTRODUCTION

This 50th Anniversary Issue of the Arizona Law Review presents a wonderful opportunity to look back at some remarkable legal developments of the latter half of the twentieth century and the issues that have impacted the work of the judicial branch during that time. One important development is a shift in the issues surrounding the judicial selection process. This trend is particularly notable at the state level because selection processes in the states are easier to change, interest has historically been much lower, and more litigation takes place at the state level than in the federal judicial system.1 Judicial selection methods and the practices surrounding them have a great impact

This overview of international law should provide much-needed background in an area of the law that is rapidly emerging in ways that affect courts here and abroad. The reason for the expanded focus on international law, of course, is globalization. No institution of government can afford now to ignore the rest of the world. The importance of globalization should not be underestimated. Thirty percent of our gross domestic product is internationally derived. We operate today under a large array of international agreements and organizations: the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the Hague Conventions on Collection of Evidence Abroad and on Service of Process, and the New York Convention on Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, to mention only a few. But globalization is much more than simply these agreements and organizations. Globalization also represents a greater awareness of, and access to, peoples and places far different from our own. The fates of nations are more closely intertwined than ever before, and we are more acutely aware of the connections. As we learned in this country on September 11, 2001, these connections can sometimes be devastating rather than constructive. But as we also are learning in the post-September 11 world, the power of international cooperation and international under standing is much greater than the obstacles we face.

The word “globalization” has many connotations, some positive and

[A]n overspeaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal.

-Francis Bacon, The Essay on Judicature

As you know, I’ve made a life in the law. And I’ve always loved music, from childhood on.

Lawyers feature in plenty of operas, of course. It starts with Moses, the first Lawgiver, in Rossini’s Mose and Arnold Schoenberg’s Moses und Aron. As expected, Moses generally comes off as an admirable character. But operatic evaluations of later lawyers are more critical. What we find in opera concerning lawyers after Moses is Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi about forging a will; a lawyer in Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess who sells Bess a divorce for a dollar-when he learns Bess was never actually married, he raises the price of the “divorce” to $1.50; we also see the lawyer in Strauss’ Die Fledermaus,who is so incompetent that he gets his client’s sentences increased.

The law’s presence is also palpable in the many operas which take place in jails. Jails must be irresistible to composers looking for a place to set a reflective aria-there is plenty of time to think in jail; there is nothing better to do; and the resonance is good. There are jail scenes in Faust, Don Carlo, and Tosca, for instance. Fideliot akes place entirely in jail, portraying a disguised woman’s successful attempt to save her wrongly imprisoned and soon-to-be-executed husband.

Gilbert and Sullivan also come through, as usual, with well placed pokes at the law. In Trial by fury,we meet a lonely Lord Chancellor whose job of approving