Electing Judges is fucking moronic. idiotic. duh.

[cali]

bi-partisan nominating committees may not be perfect but they're a lot better than electing judges.

An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial

In early June the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the longtime progressive advocacy group, released the results of a landmark study on "the effect of campaign contributions on judicial behavior." The statistics confirmed what former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and countless other observers of our legal systems have long contended: Judicial elections impair the fair administration of justice by fostering impermissible appearances of impartiality by judicial candidates and judges. In seeking votes, in acting like politicians, judges invariably lose what they ought to prize most: their perceived credibility as neutral arbiters of cases and controversies.

When I read the study, the first person I thought of was Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, a popular and successfully reelected jurist whose campaign-style website I wrote about last year for The Atlantic. Justice Willett, it seems to me, is the poster-child for the results of the ACS study. Indeed, he should have been on its cover. So I reached out to him, asked him to read the ACS study, and to then answer for me a few questions about his perceptions about judicial elections and the role campaign contributions play in them. About a month ago, he graciously complied in a way that was both candid and frightening.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/an-elected-judge-speaks-out-against-judicial-elections/279263/

In a recent dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor shined a light on the complicated world of electing judges, and rekindled a debate on justice in America. Her fear is that the Constitution's guarantee of due process and a fair trial could be threatened by campaign pressure on judges who must stand for election.

For Mario Dion Woodward, it's literally a matter of life and death. Woodward was convicted of fatally shooting a Montgomery, Ala., police officer. In 2006, a jury recommended by a vote of 8-4 that he serve life without parole. But a trial judge ordered Woodward executed anyway.

When the U.S. Supreme Court denied Woodward's request for an appeal in November, Sotomayor noted that among the three states where judges can override juries to impose the death sentence, 26 of the 27 life-to-death overrides since 2000 were in Alabama. She warned that "Alabama judges, who are elected in partisan proceedings, appear to have succumbed to electoral pressures."

An Equal Justice Initiative study on Alabama's death penalty, cited by Sotomayor, says, "The proportion of death sentences imposed by override often is elevated in election years." As, Tommy Nail, the presiding judge in Birmingham's criminal court says about the effect of elections on fair trials, "It has to have some impact. ... Let's face it, we're human beings."

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/05/judges-campaign-alabama-sotomayor-column/4329823/

According to several watchdog organizations, states that elect their judges have one of the worst judicial climates in the country. The state has been given the dubious title of the nation’s judicial hellhole by several neutral watchdog groups. Campaign funds given to a judicial candidate are often cited as possibly influencing future judicial decisions. Some are advocating the appointment of judges in order to do away with the pressure on judicial candidates to raise campaign contributions. So is this the solution? Is appointing rather than electing judges the way to go?

But this raises the question -- who will do the picking? To paraphrase former Louisiana Governor Huey Long, “I’m all for appointin’ judges as long as I get to do the appointin’.” After all, most appointed judges receive their job through the good ole’ boy network. It’s not what you know, but who you know, and few get these plumb appointments for life without being well plugged in to the political system. So those who sanctimoniously talk about the politics involved in electing judges are turning a blind eye to the heavy-handed politics of an appointed system.

There has been virtually no monitoring or policing of appointed judges on either the federal or state level. If there are any abuses on the bench, the other judges just turn their heads and refuse to pass judgment on their peers. This is true even if judges on a higher court are involved. So it is obvious that it will take more public scrutiny to see that appointed judges who put themselves in conflicting situations are held more accountable.

And what about the influence of campaign contributions that are accepted by those seeking to step up to the bench and wear black robes? No doubt about it. Campaign contributions pose a great problem for those who want impartiality.

Even if a judge swears not to be swayed by campaign contributions, there is a real perception problem here. Let’s face it -- lawyers who practice before elected judges are often the prime source of campaign contributions. And too often, vested interests that have a case pending before an elected judge are significant sources for the same campaign contributions

<snip>

http://www.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/news/345-does-electing-judges-create-a-judicial-hellhole

[Schema Thing]

1. and sheriffs as well. Insanely bad idea.

[cali]

2. yes, sheriff's as well. mind boggling

[11 Bravo]

3. Kick for an excellent read. And I couldn't agree more, it is mind-blowingly stupid and ...

an open invitation to corruption.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. And besides the corruption angle,

which is significant, most voters do not know a thing about the judges who are running, nor do they seem to care. It is like asking the populace to choose which physics theory is more plausible....they just are not the best judges of the quality of the theories/judges.

The only problem is that if judges are not elected, are the people who will choose the judges any more qualified to make the decisions.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. That's why we have Senate confirmation on the federal level

So that the person picking can't appoint just anyone. You could set up a similar system for any level of government.

[cali]

7. yes- as the republican supreme court mentions in the piece in the op

and yes, the judicial selection boards in states that go that route, are far more qualified. appointment/retention is demonstrably the preferable avenue. easy peasy to compare.

[kiva]

5. Agreed.

I live in a state with elected judges and whenever I ask students if elected or appointed (Supreme Court) is better, most think that elected is better.

Then I ask them if Brown v Board would have been unanimous with an elected Supreme Court. Changes minds for some people.

[former9thward]

8. In my area judges are elected at the local level.

State judges are appointed by a judicial board on merit. Every year a bill comes up in the legislature to make all the judges merit based. Every year both parties give it a thumbs down because they want to keep their power in the respective geographic areas.

[Nye Bevan]

9. What elected judge is going to release a murderer who was caught through an illegal police search?

A big part of judges' jobs is to make decisions that may be extremely unpopular but are legally and constitutionally correct.

[CK_John]

10. We elect judges in NY and it's works well most of the time and it's better than a party hack.

[cali]

12. sorry, but studies have shown over and over again that

the appointment/retention system is FAR less corrupt than elections.

[CK_John]

15. Studies don't mean squat it's depends on state tradition and it's belief that the voter is in

charge or they are too stupid to make their own decisions.

I go for representative government, my 2 cents count.

[cali]

18. bwahahahaha. figures you'd say that.

first of all, NY has mixed selection/election processes. Oh, and of course well conducted studies mean a great deal- obviously

Beyond that, I hate to break this to you but big money buys big influence and you have to raise big money to get elected- at least in most places. Does CU ring a little bell in your noggin?

but then you appear to be very pro corporate control.

<snip>

Special interests, like the casino, energy and hospital industries and others, have been heavily involved and sometimes find their ways around disclosure rules and exert their influence through independent expenditures, reducing race after race into a contest of slogans.

In six states where spending has been especially heavy — Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas — the harm to justice is well documented. A new report by the Center for American Progress has shown that in those states, impartiality appears diminished. It noted, “The high courts that have seen the most campaign spending are much more likely to rule in favor of big businesses and against individuals who have been injured, scammed, or subjected to discrimination.”

The center found that in 403 cases between 2000 and 2010, the courts in those states ruled in favor of corporations 71 percent of the time, notably more often than the odds would predict. From Karl Rove in Alabama to the Tea Party and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity in Wisconsin, some of the most aggressive conservative shapers of American politics today have helped push state courts to the right.

While individual judges may not sell their votes outright, political donors have an interest in electing judges who support their point of view. Businesses and their surrogates have deep pockets to contribute to campaigns, giving them tremendous sway in the elections.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/judicial-elections-and-the-bottom-line.html

[CK_John]

22. Do you have a 50 state solution to change their constitutions or do not understand what republic means

[PotatoChip]

25. Why would all 50 states have to change their constitutions? (nt)

[Fumesucker]

11. Scalia and Thomas were both appointed

And appointed judges didn't save us from Bush V Gore, arguably one of the most disastrous SCOTUS rulings ever.

[cali]

13. where would you rather face a judge in family court or criminal court

Vermont or Arkansas? Massachusetts or Texasi?

and the articles I used in the OP clearly show why electing judges leads to a MUCH MUCH worse system than appointment/retention.

[Fumesucker]

20. I can see opportunity for corruption in either system

And was just pointing out a counter-example to show that appointing judges does not free them from having agendas distinctly opposed to true justice.

The longer I stay on DU the more I realize how imperfect all systems of governance are and how vulnerable all our institutions are to corruption, it's not just epidemic it's pandemic.

[cali]

21. But virtually every study done, indicates that the corruption is FAR worse

when electing judges.

[Fumesucker]

23. Then Bush v Gore would indicate that we are lost

Indeed the light from lost won't reach us for ten billion years.

Is there a stronger word than pandemic? I think we need one.

[AnalystInParadise]

24. Wow

What an arrogant statement, that the the voters of Arkansas and Texas will not elect good judges, but Vermont and Massachusetts will. Your regional bias is showing and it is unattractive.

[malokvale77]

26. I can say this..,.

Dallas County, Texas went Democratic a couple of elections back. Mostly it has been good, but in the judges races it has been really stinky.

I know of one family court in particular where the Democratic judge that replaced a well respected Republican judge, has been a disaster.

Like I said... really stinky. This woman is a total clown compared to the very knowledgeable and fair woman she replaced.

This is why I never vote a straight ticket. Not every Democrat is qualified for the position they seek.

[Rex]

14. Plus waiting around for the right Congress and POTUS sure is frustrating to

us little people. Maybe term limits for the SCOTUS?

[Separation]

16. Me and the wife were driving around last weekend

We keep seeing Elect so and so for Sherriff, Elect so and so for Judge. I told her I should run for a judge position, she laughed and said you can't do that. I then asked why not? She said you aren't a lawyer, but I said is that really a requirement? Since it is an elected position what are the requirements?

I'm now going to have to go look it up.

[frazzled]

17. The main thing is ...

Even if there weren't the campaign pressure, I feel electing judges is bad because voters really do not know anything. I include myself in this category, even though every election cycle I do hours worth of research from various endorsing agencies (several Bar Associations, newspapers, independent groups, etc.).

We usually have at least 50 judicial races and retention questions on our ballots, sometimes more. Honestly, WTF do I know. And I'm sure very few people even bother to vote in these races. Even the judges who are rated unfit by every judicial rating standard almost NEVER get kicked out on a ballot vote.

Judges should be appointed, but unless at the highest levels, only for specific terms.

[cali]

19. don't include yourself in that category. you clearly do your homework

beyond that, it's clear from studies and cases that big money buys opinions from judges. In most places, it is only for specific terms with retention being voted on.