Change in Process to Appoint Administrative Judges

The Washington Post recently ran an article about changes to the system of selecting Veterans law judges (or ALJs) within the Board of Veterans Appeals and whether that is affecting their impartiality.  The story, I’ve never seen these positions politicized’: White House rejection of veterans judges raises concerns of partisanship is primarily about the rejection of candidates for positions within the Board of Veterans Appeals. This excerpt from the article gives you the background

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals has long filled a nonpartisan role in the federal government, run by dozens of judges charged with sorting through a thicket of regulations to determine whether an injured veteran is entitled to lifetime benefits.

But this summer, the White House rejected half of the candidates selected by the board chairwoman to serve as administrative judges, who make rulings on the disability claims. The rejections came after the White House required them to disclose their party affiliation and other details of their political leanings, according to documents viewed by The Washington Post.

Such questions had not been asked of judge candidates in the past, according to former judges and board staff.

As part of the process, the candidates were asked to provide links to their social media profiles and disclose whether they had ever given a speech to Congress, spoken at a political convention, appeared on talk radio, or published an opinion piece in a conservative forum such as Breitbart News or a liberal one such as Mother Jones, according to one candidate, who requested anonymity because the person is not authorized to speak to the media.

The rejected applicants are three Democrats and an independent. Of the four accepted by the White House and sworn in last week, three are Republicans, and one has no party affiliation but has voted in GOP primaries, according to documents and interviews.