Comments on: From ten years ago: electing judges, pro and con

By: wilbur

wilbur — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 16:49:14 +0000

There is no good system. I’ve practiced law in a merit-based selection process state, and there is as much “politics” – if not more – than in electing judges.

By: Jason K.

Jason K. — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:55:38 +0000

In reply to jdgalt. “Elected justices are more likely to push back against the excessive use of force by judges and police” - my experience in Texas suggests that this is not the case. It is really easy to spin such activity as ‘soft on crime’, which is frequently the death knell for a judge’s electoral chances.

By: jdgalt

jdgalt — Sun, 04 Nov 2018 17:25:41 +0000

Dan Pero’s point is well taken, but it’s not the only reason to favor election. Elected justices are more likely to push back against the excessive use of force by judges and police, and in favor of needed reforms such as loser-pays; both positions which are now largely held back by bar associations, police unions, and similar well-funded lobbying groups which in effect own most governors.

The biggest thing wrong with judicial elections is not that they exist, but that the present pretense that judges are non-political prevents voters from seeing any information about their positions or the rulings they’ve made in any election information materials. As a remedy I suggest putting that information (perhaps with names redacted) online in bulk, so that political groups can review it and publish recommendations.