What makes a good judge?
That’s the question before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, as it considers the nomination of Daniel Gluck to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA).
Gov. David Ige chose Gluck, the executive director and general counsel for the state Ethics Commission, from a list of six candidates provided by the Judicial Selection Commission.
Gluck’s nomination has been Opens in a new tabchallenged Opens in a new tab, not unreasonably, by those wanting more diversity on the bench and someone with more courtroom experience. Three of the candidates Ige passed over are women of Hawaiian ancestry, with much more experience than Gluck working in appellate courts.
“At present, there are no native Hawaiian, Filipino, Pacific Islander, or African American judges at the Supreme Court or the ICA,” said a letter from the House Native Hawaiian Caucus.
Of course, neither the right resume nor race can guarantee a good judge. Hawaii’s judges have all sorts of professional backgrounds, a different kind of diversity that can serve the public well.
It’s worth noting that the commission chose Gluck and five others from a list of 14 candidates. Presumably, in the commission’s judgment, all six are qualified to serve. And Gluck is not without skills; he is well known and respected in court and in the community as a good lawyer and energetic advocate of civil rights and government ethics.
As legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Hawaii, Gluck made headlines for challenging crackdowns on the city’s homeless population. As head of the state Ethics Commission, he investigated numerous complaints about the misuse of public resources as well as misconduct, including one that led to the resignation of former House Speaker Joe Souki.
The governor, as the appointing authority, is entitled to due deference in his choices — but not absolute acquiescence. In this case, those objecting to Gluck’s nomination raise important, broad questions about Hawaii’s judiciary and whether it truly reflects the diversity of Hawaii’s people. It’s entirely appropriate and necessary for the Judiciary Committee to weigh these questions along with the nominee’s qualifications and background.
The committee is scheduled to review Gluck’s nomination at 11 a.m. Tuesday and make a decision on Wednesday. Certainly, Gluck deserves a fair hearing before senators with open minds. But the issues raised go beyond one nomination, and it would behoove the governor to address them — openly, honestly and publicly.
