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.