repose at the Supreme Court, the setting for the# accomplishments she may be best remembered for.

But her 2006 retirement for the court was# not the end of her involvement in public## affairs.

She spent her last active years# working to end the election of judges,## which is currently the practice in 39# states.

She saw it as incompatible with an## independent judiciary.

She explained it at a 2010# conversation with Judy Woodruff on the NewsHour.

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, Former Associate Justice of# the Supreme Court of the United States: You can## ge campaign contributions when you have# elections.

And I don't think we should## have any cash in our courtrooms.

It doesn't# belong here.

How can the judge be expected## to be absolutely fair and impartial?# If the donor is a forum and the court.

JOHN YANG: She worked on this project with# the Institute for the Advancement of the## American legal system at the University of# Denver.

Rebecca Love Kourlis i executive director of that organization.# She's also a former Supreme Court justice## in Colorado where we should add that since# 1966, all state judges have been appointed.

Rebecca, when I've heard Justice# O'Connor talk about this in the past,## she always linked it to her disappointment,# I guess you'd say or dis effects of a decision in the court in which she# was in the majority.

Can you tell us about that?

REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS, Former Exec.

Dir., Institute# for the Advancement of the American Legal System:## which there was a determination by the# United States Supreme Court that judges## could not under the for First Amendment# be constrained in their campaign speech.

The practical implication of that is that# or has been that judges are free to actually## campaign for a judicial seat too much as one# would campaign for any other elective office## without the constraints that the judicial# Code of Conduct would otherwise impose.

JOHN YANG: So much of American politics# over the last few years has played out## in the courts the fight over the# 2020 election.

Earlier this year,## there was record spending in a Supreme Court# reason Wisconsin, North Carolina redistricting## changed when the majority on the court changed.# To what extent are events making the case for you?

REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Yes, actually, they# absolutely are.

But the problem is that changing## judicial selection processes is constitutional# in the various states across the country.

And,## of course, just for clarification, we're# talking here now about state court judicial## selection.

Federal Judicial selection is a# whole different ball of wax or can of worms,## whichever way you want to look at it.# But that's not something with which we## worked with Justice O'Connor, and that# is a United States Constitution issue.

So these are state by state constitutions, which# are very difficult to change.

But you are so## right, the infusion of partisan politics where# they don't belong, and the increasing polarity## of partisan politics absolutely makes the argument# that judges should not be in the middle of that.

JOHN YANG: Now, your organization# and Justice O'Connor came up with## a blueprint for how to achieve this.

What# are th REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: It's a Four Point Plan,# which is called the O'Connor Judicial Selec Plan.

In the first instance, it involves choice of# a panel of individuals by a nominating commission,## variously appointed, depending# upon the state you're looking at,## but from different appointing authorities# and with a bipartisan makeup, that commi tenders names to the governor of that state,# who then chooses one of those individuals.

The individual serves for a provisional# term is subjected to a judicial performance## evaluation process, and then stands for what# is known as retention on the ballot for a yes,## no up or down vote from the electorate# but with the benefit of having gone## through sort of the job evaluation that the# judicial performance evaluation interposes.

JOHN YANG: How much progress do you# feel you're making on this issue?

REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Not much, to be entirely# cand notion that they want judges to be accountable.# And to some extent, I get that you don't want## robe judges who have no connection to their# community or to the pulse of the community.

On the other hand, what that accountability# looks like is really the issue, a partisan## election where there's an R or a D or# an I or a U next to the judges name,## and where the judge has to campaign# and express opinions.

And as Justice## O'Connor said in that clip, raise# money.

That's not the answer.

There are other ways such as this judicial# performance evaluation process to achieve## accountability without it invading# impartiality.

But it's a tough sell## American electors want the capacity to yank# somebody out of office if they think they're## out of line or have some sense of control# over the process.

So it's a very tough sell.

JOHN YANG: As you worked with# Justice O'Connor on this,## did you get a sense of how# important this was to he REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: Oh, was incredibly# important.

There w in Nevada in 2010.

And Justice O'Connor worked# the state.

I mean, she literally made herself## available for interviews and clips and almost# pounding the pavement in an effort to communicate## to Nevada voters how important this was, and it# ended up losing 58-42, I think if my memory serves But she was willing to go all out she was# so passionate about trying to ensure that## judges had the capacity to be impartial that the# noises in their head or the angels or devils on## their shoulders were not comprised of trying to# elicit public opinion in some way or raise money.

JOHN YANG: Rebecca love coreless talking## about working with Sandr REBECCA LOVE KOURLIS: You're# very welcome.

Thank you so much.