Electing Judges

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Liberal forces are organizing in Wisconsin to defeat the re-election of a conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, all part of a larger effort by the Left to repeal through litigation Wisconsin's new anti-public union law. (Source)

Liberals in the state are trying to make the April election for a state supreme court justice a referendum on Governor Walker and his policies to reform public union pensions...

Conservatives currently hold a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin court, but an upset would give liberals the balance of power. Mr. Prosser's opponent, JoAnne Kloppenburg, was a relative unknown and a decided underdog until the protests ignited in Madison. She is now running around that state arguing that Mr. Prosser is a rubber stamp for Governor Walker and his agenda. The liberal groups are up with ads called "Prosser Is Walker..."

A memo written by liberal groups explains that the left's strategy is to win this race and then "challenge in the courts," nearly every budget reform that Mr. Walker and the Republican majority in the legislature tries to enact...

To be fair, Liberals are hardly alone in their tactics. We need search no further than last fall's election in Iowa:

DES MOINES — An unprecedented vote to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state was celebrated by conservatives as a popular rebuke of judicial overreach, even as it alarmed proponents of an independent judiciary.

The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.

Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

But critics of the campaign, including those who see the courts as a protector of minority rights, said the politicization of uncontested judicial elections represented a danger.

“What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law. “Something like this really does chill other judges.”

(Source)

I happen to agree with Chemerinsky on this one. I think electing judges completely compromises the independence of the judiciary and any incentive justices have to interpret and rule on the law fairly and impartially rather than politically. (Note: Ruling on the law politically is not the same thing as having a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy, at least not in my opinion.)

I think cases like these are poster children for why electing the judiciary is bad government. My state of Massachusetts does not elect judges. But what about the members of the forum whose states do elect judges? What are your thoughts on this?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Liberal forces are organizing in Wisconsin to defeat the re-election of a conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, all part of a larger effort by the Left to repeal through litigation Wisconsin's new anti-public union law. (Source)
To be fair, Liberals are hardly alone in their tactics. We need search no further than last fall's election in Iowa:

(Source)

I happen to agree with Chemerinsky on this one. I think electing judges completely compromises the independence of the judiciary and any incentive justices have to interpret and rule on the law fairly and impartially rather than politically. (Note: Ruling on the law politically is not the same thing as having a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy, at least not in my opinion.)

I think cases like these are poster children for why electing the judiciary is bad government. My state of Massachusetts does not elect judges. But what about the members of the forum whose states do elect judges? What are your thoughts on this?

Election of judges is better than appointment of judges.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Once again, your profound words of wisdom and persuasion have won the day and convinced me otherwise with little to no explanation or reasoning skills. Well done.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Election of judges is better than appointment of judges.

I'm not so sure actually. from what I hear, in PA judges have to be elected. The candidate who donates the most money to the party gets their name put on the top of the ballot and everyone just votes for that person. I don't remember all the details but this was the gist of it. You basically buy your way into the judges position. They should be appointed by some sort of independent committee or something. but elections just strike me as a poor way to do things.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not so sure actually. from what I hear, in PA judges have to be elected. The candidate who donates the most money to the party gets their name put on the top of the ballot and everyone just votes for that person. I don't remember all the details but this was the gist of it. You basically buy your way into the judges position. They should be appointed by some sort of independent committee or something. but elections just strike me as a poor way to do things.

That's the hitch...as with senators, governors, etc...the party with the most money wins. So I also think there should be no parties. Also, campaign finance reform can't hurt. Either way, there's no perfect system at this time...but I always hated appointed judges.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's the hitch...as with senators, governors, etc...the party with the most money wins. So I also think there should be no parties. Also, campaign finance reform can't hurt. Either way, there's no perfect system at this time...but I always hated appointed judges.

Maybe it needs to be some fixed system where people ascend through the ranks. Like you have to start as a prosecutor or something, maybe spend time as a public defender. Then you can move up, and eventually you become eligible for the judges position. Then you could apply for it and perhaps a panel of existing judges would have to interview you and pick the right candidate. A merit system essentially.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Maybe it needs to be some fixed system where people ascend through the ranks. Like you have to start as a prosecutor or something, maybe spend time as a public defender. Then you can move up, and eventually you become eligible for the judges position. Then you could apply for it and perhaps a panel of existing judges would have to interview you and pick the right candidate. A merit system essentially.

Any system has the "human" factor. Someone, somewhere making the decisions. Ultimately, humans make poor decisions or decisions based on money or politics.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Any system has the "human" factor. Someone, somewhere making the decisions. Ultimately, humans make poor decisions or decisions based on money or politics.

well of course but we should try to minimize it as much as possible.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I think you should have to pass the bar in order to vote in an election for judges.

Haha, now there's an interesting idea. Though, you can hear the screams of advocates chanting racism and hatred against poor people now, can't you?

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

But I also think there should be more avenues for challenging the bar.

How so?

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

There's something like four States that allow one to challenge the bar, i.e., take the bar exam without going through law school. There are also other conditions that must be met, like certain number of hours working at a law firm or in a judge's chambers, before one can actually take the exam. I think programs like these for any field are an excellent idea. This also alleviates the "hatred against poor people" argument. Here in California, for example, pretty much anyone can become a lawyer if that's their calling in life. They just have to be dedicated to it.

I don't disagree. If you can pass the exam without wasting 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in law school, the more power to you. Apprenticing oneself in a law office or with a judge worked well for many years, so why so many people think such a track wouldn't work now is beyond me. In fact, I think that might actually teach a student more skills, like how to actually practice law, that law school really doesn't teach you. It shouldn't be surprising that so many firms have to retrain many associates how to actually practice.

I think it comes down to the fact that the ABA, the law school industrial complex, and state bars like the virtual monopoly cash-cow system they have going on right now and will fight any attempt to reform it. Or, maybe I am just too cynical.