Forum » Gender Society Public Forums » Polly Ticks » Judicial Elections

Judicial Elections

Tags : None
  • In the U.S., methods of selecting judges to serve on the bench vary from state to state.  In Utah, judges are recommended by a committee, and appointed to their positions.  Every four years, the voters have the opportunity, through a yes/no vote, to decide whether to retain each judge.  Recently, one judge who had repeatedly demonstrated religious and anti-gay bias was voted off the bench.  (Maybe Utah's voters are more tolerant than one would think.)  This evidently got some legislators thinking.  In many other states, judicial positions are elective offices just like many others.  In many cases, these elections are partisan.  There are proposals here to make Utah's system the same way.

    I believe that competitive elections for judges, especially partisan ones, are dangerous.  In states where these elections are held, the familiar political attack advertisements have taken hold.  Judges who make decisions which protect the rights of a minority are particularly vulnerable to attack in elections.  Of course, in Utah's system, a judge can be voted out, but since no one else can directly run against a sitting judge, personal attacks are less likely and money seldom gets poured into judicial campaigns.

    While direct elections of the people who make our laws are certainly appropriate, elections of judges compromise the judicial independence which is so important to protecting our rights and preventing mob rule from taking hold.  A judge who must run against someone else for re-election every few years is far more likely to make politically-motivated decisions than one whose position is more secure.  I would certainly not wish to come before a judge who won an election on a Republican or Democratic ticket.  That kind of election system ensures a political bias in the judiciary.

    I am curious as to what kind of system for choosing judges is in place in other states and countries, and how well (or poorly) the system works.

    Heather H.
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
      February 8, 2003 10:30 PM GMT
    0
  • Heather, I agree with you. The reason our Supreme Court justices are appointed is to keep politics out of their jobs as much as possible. Judges shouldn't be influenced by political whims that change from moment to moment. They should focus on applying the laws of the land appropriately to each case. Yes, our elected officials in the USA do often appoint judges based on political and ideological considerations, but at least the appointed judges themselves are removed from politics by one step.

    Do you think the level of government makes a difference? Does that concept apply just as well to local judges as it does to federal (specifically Supreme Court) judges?

      February 9, 2003 10:26 AM GMT
    0
  • Luckily, at the federal level, there are no judicial elections.  The procedure for appointing judges at the federal level is that the President appoints a judge, and that appointment is subject to confirmation by the Senate.  If there is serious opposition to a judge, a 60% vote is required in the Senate for confirmation.  If a federal judge is guilty of serious misconduct, Congress can start the impeachment and removal procedure.  This is a good system.  The appointment and confirmation of a judge is difficult enough that extremely ideological candidates seldom make it through the process, and once confirmed, it is difficult to remove a judge, so judges are appropriately removed from political considerations.

    State and local governments should change their systems to match the federal system.

    Heather H.
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
      February 9, 2003 4:07 PM GMT
    0
  • So, you would have mayors & city councils appointing & confirming judges in metropolitan areas, county officials appointing local judges in non-netro areas, and all state judges appointed by governors and confirmed by the local legislatures? That doesn't sound bad to me.

    In Tennessee, the five state Supreme Court justices are elected on a yes-no vote every eight years under the revised Missouri Plan, known as the Tennessee Plan and they represent each of the state's three grand divisions. Court of Appeals judges are also selected under the Tennessee version of the Missouri Plan. When a vacancy occurs on the Court of Appeals, the 15-member Judicial Selection Commission recommends three candidates from the grand division of the state in which the vacancy exists. The governor appoints a new judge from the list of three candidates. Court of Appeals judges run on a yes-no ballot every eight years. Voters decide to retain or reject the judges, who run unopposed. Below that level, I think all state judges are elected to eight-year terms.




      February 9, 2003 9:53 PM GMT
    0
  • Stevie, Heather--

    **sigh** No disagreement here. Sorry! ;D

    I agree...voting for judges is not a good way to have your judicial system based.

    Then again...given some of the administrations of the last 40 years...it does have a certain merit...! ;)

    Luv 'n hugs,

    Jayne Sakura :)
    "Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"
    Living as the woman I am!
      February 10, 2003 5:45 PM GMT
    0