Attention was drawn to Virginia this week with the execution of John Allen Muhammad, the state’s 104th person to be executed since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976. Officials are preparing for another execution next week, but little noticed amid the recent activity in the state’s death chamber is that there has not been a death verdict from a jury in the state since March 2008.

The Virginia Supreme Court recently made a wise decision to step back from a proposal to make all criminal-trial juries anonymous. The proposal was a misguided case of judicial activism. Last year the General Assembly passed a law permitting anonymous juries if a judge found good cause for keeping jurors’ identities secret in certain circumstances. The legislature instructed the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for putting the law into effect.

Politicians are to be expected to propose solutions in search of a problem. But it’s surprising to see the judicial branch doing so. Last year the General Assembly passed legislation permitting the courts to shield the identity of jurors in certain cases for good cause. An advisory committee established by the Supreme Court of Virginia to promulgate rules for doing so took that modest and sensible proposal and ran off the cliff with it: The committee has suggested anonymizing all jurors in all criminal trials—something that would do serious harm to the principle of open government and public access.

Allowing judges in criminal trials to hide the identities of jurors in rare and specific cases, and for good cause—as authorized by legislation the General Assembly passed last year—makes sense on balance. From time to time, circumstances might warrant such an extraordinary step. But neither specific circumstances nor general principles can justify keeping jury-members’ identities secret as a matter of routine.

If adopted, a proposal to keep the names of jurors confidential, at least from the public, in all criminal trials apparently would make Virginia unique in the country. It is not clear if a defendant in Virginia ever has harmed a juror. That possibility is one of the concerns behind a law the General Assembly passed last year. That law permits judges to keep jurors’ identifying information secret from all but the lawyers in a case—even from the defendant—when a judge finds good cause there is a “likelihood” of bribery, tampering, or physical injury or harassment to jurors.

A proposal to keep jurors anonymous in all criminal trials is under consideration by the Virginia Supreme Court. The Advisory Committee on Rules of the Court is proposing to keep confidential jurors’ names, ages, occupations, telephone numbers, addresses and other identifying information. Jurors would be assigned numbers by the clerk of the court for use in open court during jury selection and the trial.