In 1987, Ohio voters rejected a ballot issue that would have created a system of merit selection for justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and judges on the state appeals bench. They did so overwhelmingly and, thus, the discussion ended. That is, until the 2000 and this year's elections for the high court. Chief Justice Tom Moyer described the most recent campaigns as ``an embarrassment,'' a visit to the ``dark side of democracy'' and harmful to the precious concept of an independent judiciary.

Two years ago, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, desperate to change the makeup of the court, supported vicious television ads against the incumbent, Justice Alice Robie Resnick. The spots recklessly asserted that Resnick sold her votes on the Supreme Court for campaign money.

This fall, no single ad was as powerful in its imagery. Several groups aired spots. They took the same approach: Justice for sale. Elect the right person, and he or she would deliver what the special interests wanted for their campaign contributions. These groups operated independently of the candidates, spreading half-truths and distortions with no legal obligation to reveal the source of their money.

Their collective and disturbing impact spurred the chief justice to warn: ``The Ohio justice system is not the playground of clever media spinners.'' Wishful thinking? Many in legal circles and beyond have recoiled at the mud-slinging and revived talk of finding a better way to select justices.

Directly elect justices, especially when the stakes are high, when the courts look at controversial matters from school-funding to the rules for liability cases, and the result will be campaigns that attract intense interest. Thirty states have opted for another approach. Many call for the governor to appoint justices to the high court via a bipartisan commission that makes recommendations. The legislature may have a role in confirmation. Typically, the selected justice serves for one, two or three years on the court and then faces a retention election to complete a full term of, say, six, eight or 10 years.

The justices are not removed entirely from the political fray. Neither are federal judges, who are appointed to life terms by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Enough distance would be created to preserve the principles of judicial independence and integrity. Voters would still have a voice in assessing the performance of justices. On an Election Day, they could toss a justice off the bench.

The measure defeated by Ohioans 15 years ago took a similar approach. Moyer has not pressed to revive that specific plan. He has proposed the formation of a commission to make recommendations on an appropriate course for Ohio toward merit selection. Gov. Bob Taft, the Ohio State Bar Association, civic and business leaders across the law should jump forward to aid the chief justice.

They should also push the interim steps proposed by Moyer in May and reiterated in the aftermath of the election. The chief justice points to troubling surveys that find eight in 10 Ohioans think fund-raising has some or a great amount of influence on a judge. He wants to ensure quality and crediblity on the bench.

Moyer has called for lengthening the terms of all judges to at least eight years (from the current six). That should certainly be the case at the appellate level. Thirty-five states have terms of more than six years.

The chief justice wants Ohio to adopt the American Bar Association Standards on Judicial Qualifications. A broad-based panel would assess and report whether candidates have the legal knowledge and temperament to serve. In Akron, the local bar association offers a similar evaluation of judicial candidates. It has proved helpful.

In addition, Moyer would require judicial candidates to have a minmum of 10 years of legal practice for trial courts and more than 10 for the appellate benches. Ohio currently requires six years. He wants independent committees to report their spending and contributions. He wants judicical campaigns to do so more often.

Other states supply voters with information about judicial candidates, a guide of sorts. Moyer would like Ohio to do the same. He has proposed that legislators look at public funding of Supreme Court races. In many ways, these races provide an attractive vehicle for testing the concept.

That may be far more than state lawmakers are willing to explore. Surely, they see the virtue in lengthening terms, enhancing qualifications and exposing the political money trail. In January, Moyer plans to convene a one-day forum to discuss such matters. He hopes for momentum. In that way, Bob Taft could make a difference, giving the forum a high profile, spending a bit of his impressive stock of political capital.

Almost everyone recognized it would take something extraordinary to rekindle the notion of merit selection. It has. The past two election seasons have produced such ugly races for the Supreme Court the question now resonates: What can be done? Tom Moyer has taken the lead. He could use some help. Ohio could use a better way to select its justices.