Effort Begun to End Voting for Judges (a really big deal)

[ensho]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/24judges.html


A group of judges, political officials and lawyers, led by the retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has begun a campaign to persuade states to choose judges on the basis of merit, rather than their ability to win an election.

As a state legislator in the 1970s, Justice O’Connor helped Arizona create a merit selection system for judges. She is now chairwoman of the O’Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, announced this month by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, to help make judges more than “politicians in robes,” as she has put it.

The group plans a new push to fight judicial corruption, and the perception of corruption that campaign money can cause, by encouraging state initiatives to scrap direct judicial elections. The work will include traveling from state to state, by invitation, to work with lawmakers, policy makers and advocates to build support for selection systems through public education, legislative counsel and political campaigns.

Rebecca Love Kourlis, the founder of the institute, acknowledged that getting voters to give up the right of direct election was “a hard sell,” but she argued, “You’re going to get a better caliber of judge over all.”

-snip-

Judicial elections have become “tawdry and embarrassing,” she said, and the Supreme Court decided an important case this year concerning judicial conflicts of interest that underscored the potentially corrupting influence of campaign contributions to judicial political campaigns, “which changes the landscape, from a legal perspective, and makes us hopeful that this is the time.”

-snip-

At international legal conferences, she said, “they’re all amazed” when the discussion of the American system comes up. “They say, ‘How can that be?’ ”
------------------------------

[treestar]

1. This is great

Judges should be chosen by who knows the most about the law. And a willingness to apply it, rather than personal will.

[TexasObserver]

16. No, it isn't great. It's GOP manipulation to advantage the powerful.

The GOP has been fighting election of judges for at least the past 40 years. The reason they fight the election of judges isn't so we can have the best judges. It's so they can have the most toadies sitting on the bench.

[anigbrowl]

20. Oh yes it is

America is pretty unique among countries in having elected judges. It doesn't do anything especially good for the quality of the judiciary. I prefer appointments. I'd do the same thing for municipal attorneys if I could - the way prosecutors pander to the electorate is a legal disgrace and a stain on America's criminal justice system.

[TexasObserver]

24. No, it isn't. It's a GOP meme, and it's designed to help the powerful.

The federal judiciary proves you couldn't be more wrong. It is infested with right wing ideologues who use their massive power to further the GOP. Or weren't you paying attention when Al Gore had the presidency stolen by the GOP Supremes? How about when the federal judges in Texas used the GOP (read Tom Delay's) map to redistrict the congressional seats in Texas? Or did you miss that one, too?

If you had worked in the Democratic party the past four decades, you'd know that WE don't support appointed over elected judges. We fought to get elected judges, because that's the only hope of putting real Democrats on the bench.

[anigbrowl]

27. I don't get my ideas from the GOP. I prefer appointed judges because I'm European...

and I think the way judges run for office here is a legal travesty. I think your examples are extremely selective.

[williesgirl]

2. Good news - thanks for posting - rec'd

[Jamastiene]

3. I'm mixed on that idea.

I certainly do not want to see America losing any more rights or any more control of our already out of control government.

The best solution would have to be no campaign contributions and no campaigning, in the traditional sense. They waste entirely too much money doing, considering the fact that we are in the digital age now

One fairly cheap solution would be to just put a scorecard/issues dossier on local election web sites for each candidate and let voters decide based on the candidate's past work and opinions on the issues.

That would work for all of our elections, to be honest. They could just have a web site for campaigns and let people view information on the web site about the person who is running.

For those that do not have access to a computer or the internet, they could send packets of information that would have the same information as the web site.

I don't see where they need to tour like rock stars and go do photo ops to get elected anyhow. It's ridiculous if you think about it.

How many times have our leaders been chosen by their charisma over substance?

That is a hard question to answer. If two politicians had identical stances on the issues, one would win based simply on charisma.

Most of us here know of one politician who was right on the issues but just did not come off as "everybody's buddy" like the other guy did (although that one I will never understand).

Remember Al Gore? How many people talked about being lulled to sleep by his speeches, even among his supporters.

I digress though because after 2000, Gore TOTALLY relaxed. Now, he does show some of his more personable, charismatic side. But back then, during his campaign, even those of us who adore him were snoring.

Yet, when I read his viewpoints, words, letters, and transcripts, I am absolutely engaged, interested in what he really stands for, and agree with him on so much. Oh, man, we really were robbed of a true statesman there.

Still, I REEEEEEALLLLY do not like the idea of someone else choosing for us who is going to judge us. We might suck as spotting the con artists among politicians (because so many of them ARE full of it), but, at least let us screw that one up for ourselves.

[cali]

4. This is a good thing. In Vermont the only elected judges are side judges

I'm fine with that.

From Wiki:

Side judge is a judicial position apparently unique to the state of Vermont. Side judges sit with the judge in Superior and Family court. There is a Superior and a Family Court located in each of Vermont's 14 county at their "shire town" or county seat. The Superior Court handles only civil cases and violations of traffic laws and municipal ordinances; they do not handle misdemeanors or felonies. There are normally two side judges, but the court may proceed with only one side judge or none. In theory the side judges, who are generally not attorneys, have input only on matters of fact, with legal decisions left to the judge, but the vote of a side judge has the same weight as that of the judge, so two side judges can outvote the judge. If there is only one side judge and the side judge and the judge disagree on a matter of fact, a mistrial is declared.

Side judges who undergo some training may also sit alone in small claims, uncontested divorces, traffic offenses, and violations of municipal ordinances.

Side judges also have certain administrative duties. They appoint the County Clerk, Treasurer and Auditor, County Road commissioners, and Notaries Public, manage the county courthouse, sheriff's office and other property, and prepare the county budget. As a result, side judges receive two types of compensation: a salary for their administrative duties, paid by the county, and a per diem for their judicial duties, paid by the state.

The position of side judge was established in the Vermont constitution of 1791. While full judges are appointed by the Governor, side judges are elected.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Who picks the judge?

In Florida the Governor can appoint a judge, and thereafter, they retain their seat through election. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong. The system sucks because the judges who have been picked are sometimes picked for doing something risky and, possibly even illegal. But they've advanced someone's career or plan and so the judgeship is a reward.

As for the election, the newspapers are protective of certain "people in lewd standing, I mean, good standing." So the public never really learns about the controversy and don't have the facts to boot bad judges out.

[katkat]

6. Nooooo

Okay, ban campaigning and accepting contributions, do this just by a statement in the newspapers and ballot.

But putting the power to pick judges in the hands of potentially corrupt unanswerable to the voters groups? Noooo.

RI did away with direct election of most judges, now we have judges who repeatedly let hair-raisingly violent criminals out on bail or off with very light sentences or no sentence or judges who are just flamingly incompetent or corrupt. Clue: charged with a heinous crime? Get the speaker of the corrupt RI House to represent you, you're home free.

[cali]

11. Judges are appointed here in Vermont and we have a very good judiciary

and that includes judges that have been appointed by our puke governor. Of course, they have to be confirmed by our very dem legislature.

[dysfunctional press]

7. this makes 110% total sense.

most voters know absolutely ZERO about judges on the ballot when they go into the voting the booth. having them chosen by ballots that way makes absolutely NO sense.

[katkat]

13. dysfunctional press

Re: "most voters know absolutely ZERO about judges on the ballot when they go into the voting the booth. having them chosen by ballots that way makes absolutely NO sense."

Next up, getting rid of those pesky elections for office altogether.

[dysfunctional press]

17. "Next up, getting rid of those pesky elections for office altogether."

well that seems just insane...why would you support something like that...?

[anigbrowl]

21. Voters should elect on policy. Jurists are not politicians

And frankly I don't see why voters should have any say over picking judges or attorneys unless they hold a law degree themselves, any more than I as a non-doctor have any say over who gets to run the AMA.

[Jkid]

19. Most voters know absolutely nothing about judges

...except for their political party affiliation in partisan elections for judges.

People will follow their political orientation when electing judges.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. The way it's done in Alaska

is that when a judicial vacancy comes up, our Judicial Council, which is made up of some lawyers and some lay people, presents names of qualified applicants (they're rated by the lawyers in the community) to the governor who then appoints his choice. After the appointment, they come up periodically for a retention election. Usually, they are retained, but there have been a few instances where a judge was just so bad that the citizens vote them out of office. This system has seemed to work quite well for us.

[Lisa0825]

9. I have mixed feelings....

The Texas Supreme Court has been ruled by a bunch of rabid repubs for years, but I love my local judges, which in this county are mostly dems. I have campaigned for some of them, and I have a better understanding of the system in this area because I had that opportunity. However, for higher levels, I do think the system lends itself to corruption and needs to be changed.

[UTUSN]

10. K&R #7 for discussion, but I'm totally mixed on it. Starters, who's doing the picking, again?!1

Then there's who's pushing for it, Sandy "This-is-terrible-GORE-won" O'CONNOR. Not to mention that, like somebody's-terrorist-is-somebody-else's-freedom-fighter, KKKarl's definition of "merit" is sure to be quite different from mine.

So she's quoting "international" conferences: Weren't the Liberal judges pilloried for using "international" precedents?

[fizzgig]

12. it's always been bothersome to me that judges are elected in some states

here in colorado judges are appointed by the governor, but they first must be nominated by their peers and then a panel of attorneys and citizens send three nominees to the governor.

the only complaint i have about that is that almost all of them come straight from the da's office, with a few civil attorneys thrown in. there is only one former defense attorney on the bench in my district. there's one defense attorney who's been nominated several times, but he's never been appointed. i've watched him in the courtroom on many occasions and i think he'd been a good choice.

we do, however, vote to retain judges. i think there's a vote after they've served two years and then it's every six after that, but i don't now that there's ever been one who hasn't been retained. i don't vote on retention if i'm not familiar with the judge, but there are two in my district i will vote against the next time they're up for retention.

[Hannah Bell]

14. no.

[TexasObserver]

15. The GOP has long fought election of judges.

They know that special interests can control judgeships easier in an appointive system. Look at the disaster the federal bench has become. If you want to see some really right wing nuts, look no further than the judges the GOP presidents have appointed to the federal bench. They're all a bunch of right wing nuts who could not get elected in most cases, if they had to run for office.

Election of judges helps Democrats stop the powerful from controlling all the judges.

[anigbrowl]

22. Meh, they say the exact same thing about the Democrats

I'm constantly being reminded by Conservatives about those wacky judges on the 9th circuit. I think your argument is based on a faulty syllogism: right wing nut judges can be elected as easily as appointed.

[TexasObserver]

25. You're wrong. You're either ill informed or purposely misrepresenting.

You're simply very ignorant on this topic.

Appointed judges are far more conservative than elected judges. It's not close, either. Only errand boys for powerful interests think appointed judges are better than elected judges.

[MadBadger]

18. I never liked having judges get bogged down in political campaigns.

[terrell9584]

23. I'm against this idea

In this state all judges except municipal court judges and alternate judges are elected and I support that. Judicial elections serve as a citizen's check on the power of the Judiciary

[Kalyke]

26. In my (backward) state, we're going, not surprisingly, backward on this issue.

We have judicial confirmation elections on the appellate level (circuit court judges are still popularly elected), but the governor can always ignore that and appoint whomever he/she chooses.

But now there's a move afoot to make appellate judges popularly-elected, too.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/30/voters-likely-to-approve-judges/

Sigh - if it weren't for family, a good job and the moderate climate, I'd move from this backward state. It's going more conservo-fascist by the hour.