As Washington voters cast ballots today to elect one, and possibly two State Supreme Court justices, it’s time for all of us to seriously consider the concerns of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has taken up the cause of reforming state judicial campaign and election systems, writing that the “crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing.” If left unaddressed, said O’Connor, “the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that courts are supposed to uphold.”
[…] “We all expect judges to be accountable to the law rather than political supporters or special interests,” writes O’Connor. “But elected judges in many states are compelled to solicit money for their election campaigns, sometimes from lawyers and parties appearing before them. Whether or not those contributions actually tilt the scales of justice, three out of four Americans believe that campaign contributions affect courtroom decisions.”
Or to put it less judiciously… electing judges is just plain stupid.
Yes, I know it would take a constitutional amendment to end judicial elections, and yes, I know such a proposal contradicts my axiom that nobody votes for less democracy, but our current system is gradually being co-opted by wealthy special interests. From District and Superior Court elections, where the winning candidate in a contest for an open seat is most often the one who puts the most of their own money into the race, to the millions of dollars now spent on attack ads in Supreme Court races, the current system is simply no longer serving the purpose for which it was designed.
Better would be a nonpartisan nomination and appointment process along with public retention votes, the details of which could be worked out by folks more expert than me, but which would surely be better than what we have now, in which the average voter is asked to elect judges given very little if any information about the candidates other than the gender and ethnicity of their names, and whatever propaganda the candidates (and third parties) can afford to provide. Hell… I’m not qualified to vote in most judicial races, and I’m about as informed a voter as you’ll find.
I mean, what good can you say about a system that virtually assures the election of any judge named “Johnson”…?
Some folks advocate for public financing of judicial elections, but the best way to take politics out of the judiciary is to simply stop electing them. And it’s past time to start seriously having this conversation.
I’ve long been a proponant of some variation of the Missouri Plan, by which a judge is first appointed, then subject to a yes/no election in subsequent years.
Given the rules of judicial conduct which prevent a judicial candidate from commenting upon anything which would be meaninful to voters, it’s really nearly impossible for voters to be competent in balancing the qualities of the available candidates.
And recently, as Goldy mentioned, judicial races (especially state Supreme Court races) have been targeted by Republicans since the early 1990’s. Since judicial races have so few people actually voting, and most are ill-informed as to the qualifications of the candidates, and since the campaign budgets have historically been very small, it’s been rather easy to flood a particular race with cash and buy the election.
This is especially true in cases like Karl Rove’s management of a judicial campaign in Alabama, where he conducted an obnoxious smear campaign against a sitting Supreme Court justice to imply that he was a child molester and one of the ten worst judges in the nation (all false). Despite this, the incumbent judge still won a close election, narrowily winning a challenge which pre-saged the 2000 Presidential Election and 2004 Washington govenatorial post-election contests. But the effort took so much out of him he refused to run for re-election four years later.
shorter goldy: That darn constitution just gets in the way of my idealogy…lets change it!
Electing judges is wrong. To the extent possible, politicization of the judiciary should be avoided. Judges often must make decisions that could be politically unpopular; they should not have to risk their careers because of majoritarian whims. I’m not sure the state should follow the federal model and grant judges lifetime appointments. Perhaps some form of the Missouri Plan which rhp mentions would be appropriate.
yes on ending the election of judges!!!!
rhp6033 pretty much says it.
Judges should be appointed by the appropriate executive, possibly subject to confirmation by that jurisdiction’s legislative body. After some specified number of years, they’ll be subject to retention elections — should he/she continue on the bench, not should person X or person Y be a judge. If the voters choose not to retain the jurist, the executive appoints a replacement, just as would be done if the judge resigns, dies, or otherwise leaves mid-term.
Don’t forget, that without appointed federal judges with lifetime tenure, we would in all probability still have a segregated system in the South. The trials and tribulations of federal judges seeking to enforce U.S. Supreme Court rulings was the subject of a book a few years back, it made for compelling reading.
It’s WAY PAST time to end judicial elections.
Ironically, the same idiots who like electing judges because it reflects the “popular will of the people” also constantly praise the wisdom of the founding fathers – who knew we needed judges to be independent from the fickle nature of public opinion.
Retention elections still involve the same old campaigning and fundraising as regular elections. Judges should just not be elected, period.
A better plan would be to have judges appointed for a long term of years, say 12 years, after which the appointing authority could either reappoint them or appoint someone else. The long term means the judges are more independent of the appointing authority.
liar @2,
To be clear, I think the founding father’s got it right in having judges appointed for life. It’s the Washington State Constitution I propose amending.
Perfect Voter @8,
Retention elections elsewhere don’t seem to be routinely abused, and they do give voters the opportunity to toss out a bad judge. It’s a whole different dynamic than putting candidates up against each other.
@9
Elections that toss out a “bad judge?” When a judge is up for re-election, there’s always someone calling them “bad.”
Impeachments are a fine mechanism for removing a judge for cause, such as corruption.
+1 Retention elections. Unless someone can point to an existing system that’s proven better.
I don’t know . . . . The two worst judges that I ever appeared before were Dean S. Lum and Richard “Little Dick” McDermott of the King County Superior Court. Both were Gary Locke appointees. I suppose that the system might work if someone smarter than Locke was appointing them but these two clowns are horrible examples of judicial appointments.