The intention is to help develop a long-lasting position based on the principles of judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and ethics (and possibly others). The goal is a position that outlines the values – the standards and norms – the League of Women Voters should use in evaluating proposed changes to policies, laws, and regulations about the federal judiciary.

There will be two informational meetings to help provide background, followed by a consensus meeting.
(See below for further information on the LWV and consensus process.) The links and information to join are available on the calendar.
National Town Hall on February 4 at 4pm (Microsoft Teams meeting)
Prep meeting with background discussion on March 24 at 5:30pm (Zoom meeting)
Consensus meeting on March 31 at 5:30pm (Zoom meeting)

What is Consensus?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines consensus as “collective opinion or concord; general agreement or accord.” In the League, consensus is used:

●  Interchangeably with “member agreement” to refer to the overall decision-making process (including various methods such as questionnaires, polls, and so forth) by which a League study committee and board determines that there is substantial agreement among members on an issue.

●  To refer to a specific technique used traditionally in the League to discuss and arrive at conclusions on issues.

Consensus/group discussion is the technique most often used in the League for reaching member agreement. It is a process whereby members participate in a group discussion of an issue. The consensus reached by members through group discussion is not a simple majority, nor must it be unanimous; rather, it is the overall sense of the group as expressed through the exchange of ideas and opinions, whether in a membership meeting or a series of membership or unit meetings. The League definition of consensus allows for dissent — for minority opinion.

The consensus questions will be provided as a separate document. Every League that conducts a consensus meeting will answer the same set of consensus questions. Those answers will be used to write the new LWVUS position on the Federal Judiciary. 

Policy Briefs

The Federal Judiciary Study Committee has prepared a series of briefs on particular, specific topics designed to help spark discussion among League members as we work toward a LWVUS  position on the federal judiciary. By providing information on these very specific topics, our intention is to help develop a long-lasting position based on the principles of judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and ethics (and possibly others). Our goal is a position that outlines the values – the standards and norms – the League of Women Voters should use in evaluating proposed changes to policies, laws, and regulations about the federal judiciary. 

We hope League members find these briefs useful to read and promote discussion in order to discuss then what principles we want the League of Women Voters to use when acting on these issues and on whatever other issues arise in the future. 

Remember that as much as we all may want to address specific remedies in our US position, the position should be principle-based in order to ensure that it lasts for many years to come and allows us to address a wide variety of issues that may arise in future years. Our goal is for the resulting League position to be durable. Consider how many of the League’s positions were adopted decades ago and are as useful today as they were at their inception. If we write a position that applies to specific policy issues we know about and that are part of the current debate, it can limit action on other future issues. Policy papers may be downloaded in a PDF version by clicking the links below.

We hope League members find these briefs useful to read and promote discussion in order to then discuss what principles we want the League of Women Voters to use when acting on these issues and on whatever other issues arise in the future. 

Financial Disclosure
Judge Shopping
Judicial Ethics and Enforcement
Legitimacy and the US Supreme Court
Recusal
Representation
Shadow Docket
Stare Decisis and Binding Precedent
Structural reforms for the US Supreme Court