Over the past few months, the state has watched as our Legislature has made a buffoon of itself once again, this time over redistricting.

In recent weeks, our attention has also been grabbed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ed Pittman, who is on a crusade to reform Mississippi’s judiciary.

What this state could witness is how Democrats, recognized home of the trial lawyer lobby, get messed over – in part – by their own stubborn fight to keep appellate judges, those on the Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court, elected.

While Pittman’s proposed reforms do not call for the switch from elected to appointed judges, many – lawmakers and members of the media alike – are once again championing this cause, a cause vehemently opposed by said trial lawyers.

Here’s how the redistricting fight and the debate over court reform could walk hand in hand:

The two sides of the redistricting battle are watching to see which court will take final jurisdiction in this matter. A Hinds County Chancery judge, favored by Democrats, has moved up her court date from Jan. 14 to Dec. 14 after a three-judge federal panel, favored by Republicans, set its date for Jan.7.

Of interest: Hinds Chancery Court Judge Patricia Wise is elected from an area that heavily favors Democrats. The three-judge panel is appointed, all three by Republican presidents.

Many political watchers, namely Tim Kalich, publisher of the Greenwood Commonwealth, in his editorials, have started chiming in to say that the federal court is more likely to draw a fair redistricting map for the state because they are free from political influence, unlike Wise, who will face reelection and will need solid Democratic support to win.

In other words, the likelihood of her bucking the system and drawing a map in any other way than what favors Democrat Rep. Ronnie Shows is all but nil.

The irony: Democrats have argued against appointed judges for years, as many years as Republicans have argued for them. And now, it is plausible that Democrats will lose their redistricting battle in the court system simply because politics is allowed to be so prominent in state courts.

The possible saving grace for Democrats is that the Supreme Court is made up of more liberal-leaning judges than conservative ones. They could rule to keep the court battle at the state level. Of course, that won’t keep the federal panel from assuming jurisdiction.

What we have here is simply a quagmire of political dung, and it is caused by bickering, partisan legislators who argue for fairness but wouldn’t know the meaning of the word if it bit them squarely on their stubborn rear ends.

But what we could have come from it is a growing call for true reform of our judicial system – appointed appellate judges instead of elected ones.

Either way, a judge on Wise’s level would still be elected, and has no business handling such a partisan issue.

Redistricting, sadly enough for the voters, is strictly a political issue. The only chance at fairness is in the federal courts.

And the only chance for fairness in our state’s judiciary is to have appellate judges appointed.

Sam R. Hall

is managing editor of The Democrat. He can be reached at (601) 445-3552 or by e-mail to

sam.hall@natchezdemocrat.com

. &160;