The ACLU has asked Virginia Governor McDonnell to drop two of the questions on the judicial application.  According to the Washington Post:

The ACLU of Virginia has asked Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) to revise or remove two questions from his questionnaire for judicial applicants regarding mental and physical disabilities that the group says may violate the American with Disabilities Act.

The questions are: “Have you ever been treated for any emotional or mental illness or condition. If so, please give the particulars.”and “Do you suffer from any impairment of eyesight or hearing or any other physical limitation?”

“These questions are unnecessary, inappropriate, invasive and very likely illegal,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Persons with disabilities fought for many years to eliminate employment and other forms of discrimination against them. The governor’s questions are an affront to them and the law, and we hope he will move swiftly to remove them.”

The application is available.  After reading it, it seems far more invasive and inappropriate than just the health questions.  Why does the governor need to know what political candidates an applicant has contributed to?  I guess you don’t want anyone who has ever contributed to a Democratic candidate.  This administration seems to just go by its own set of rules.  The hell with  HIPAA laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Should judges and other appointment applicants be subjected to questions of this personal of a nature?  Should questions like this be part of the initial vetting or should they be part of a final selection?  Perhaps this type of question should never be asked.  How much do we really get to know about a public servant?

10 Thoughts to “ACLU asks Gov. McDonnell to drop invasive judicial questions”

  1. Cargosquid

    I wonder if candidates for Governor need to answer those questions…….

  2. Cato the Elder

    You mean we can’t ask whether or not a judicial applicant is a certifiable nut job with a history in the booby hatch? Come on.

  3. I don’t know how I feel about those 2 questions. I guess I am more disturbed by the psychological one than the deaf and blind one. I certainly think that yes/no and confidential should be options.

    I have the same problem with balance here as I do with the questionaire on gun ownership.

    I actually think that disclosure on political contributions is more offensive than all of them.

  4. marinm

    Moon, do you have the full posting from the ACLU about their issues with the application letter?

    I recall we had a discussion of mentally ill people having access to guns. Wouldn’t it be an interesting issue if a Judge was not allowed to have a firearm (because of a mental incapacity) but could allow others to do so? I think asking a Judge about his mental fitness isn’t discriminatory. I think if a Judge had marital issues that it might not be the best thing to put him/her in family court but circuit court – sure.

    For the physical disabilities it may be that the Governors office or the Supreme Court just need to know what accommodations need to be made to a future Judge’s courtroom. I just think it’s silly to assume that the questionnaire would be ‘wrong’ on the front end when the people it’s going to all are presumably senior lawyers who would obviously know if they were being discriminated by a particular question.

    I think this is a overall a good topic. I just don’t see anything we don’t already see on the private market.

  5. Raymond Beverage

    Gee, an uproar over these two questions? Good grief – and they do not violate the ADA as there are provisions within the Act to allow these forms of questions depending on the purpose and use.

    Guess nobody in the ACLU ever was in the Military and filled out an enlisment form and answered those similar questions. Or for that matter, ever worked a job within the Federal Government requiring a security clearance.

    If the ACLU has issues with those two questions, let them read the form you fill out for a clearance….and then “shreek”:
    http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf

    1. There is a need to know clause there that I am not sure those question really pass. I am more concerned over the politican campaign support and contribution questions.

  6. Censored bybvbl

    The only reason I can think of for having political campaign support or contributions mentioned is that there may be a case where a judge should recuse himself or at least the attorneys involved should be aware of the judge’s past political contributions so there’s no conflict of interest.

  7. marinm

    I agree with Censored but I think that occurs on the backend with the Chief Justice and on each Judges ‘honor’.

    I think on the front end that the Governor wants to know that a presumptive Judge has not given money to the Hitler Youth, The Che Society or any other groups that may unfairly taint the governor rather than only the Judge.

    WPOST reported that the same flyer has been used for 25 years and the ACLU didn’t have an issue back then.

  8. Yes, that is a good point censored and one I hadn’t thought of. I thought it was a litmus test to see if that judge had contributed to the right party.

    I am not so sure it isn’t. Wouldn’t a person recuse him or her self in the first place? Things like that have a way of coming out.

    Do you suppose a judge would be appointed if he or she had been a strong supporter of Creigh Deeds?

  9. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Sure! When Governor Deeds appoints him/her!

Comments are closed.