Voting for Judges: Good or Bad?

[BvBPL]

In most states in the US, state judges face some form of electoral scrutiny. This can be straight up elections or just votes to determine if they should be retained. In contrast, our federal judges do not face elections and are appointed for life.

Should judges be elected? Should they face retention votes?

An argument for electing judges focuses on electoral checks of judges in case of a nutty judge who does not reflect the will of the populace.

Arguments against electing judges is that it politicizes the judicial process and enables judges to become experts in their respective fields of law.

I can't be knackered to figure out what happens in other liberal democracies, so responses from other nations are welcomed.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think they should. The whole point to checks and balances is wrecked if judges are not outside of partisan politics.

 

[Grendeldef]

From my (national, too I assume) pov electing civil servants seems rather odd. We don't vote for judges or any sort of law enforcement nor city leaders though our juridical system is quite a bit different in several aspects.
Judges for example are supposed to reflect the law not the current view of general public in any given time. If the law is in contradiction with the public view it may be changed. Luckily it usually takes longer to change a law than it takes formulate an opinion. Occasionally it may be far from optimal way but I feel guarantees impartiality better.
In general we're nowhere near as keen on jurisdiction as US is. Here it's a minor part of governmental issues usually dealing with small, unimportant crimes and even the very few cases of wider interest nobody can name a judge, any judge. We just don't sue each other enough to make the practice of law interesting.

G

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Selecting judges is tricky business. I'm not sure that any good system exists.

I'd prefer most cases be handled not by state courts, but by arbitrators that both parties find acceptable. The ability to appeal to a higher court is still important though, and there needs to be some way of selecting who presides then.


I definitely don't think that electing judges using the current electoral system is very good. Partisan first past the post plurality voting is really not a good was of selecting anyone. As you probably all know by now, I think we really need to move towards Range Voting (or its PR variant Reweighted Range Voting) and make candidates submit summaries of their platform and qualifications (with a sworn affidavit, so lies become criminal perjury) to be made available for review in the voting booth.


I tend to like the idea of allowing voter referenda to remove any government official (in any branch, at any level, whether elected or appointed) from office, if they can get a large enough super-majority.

 

[bhsup]

I am okay with us voting to retain them occasionally once they are appointed, but not keen on voting to elect them. Leave that as an appointment. There is actually a ballot measure in MO (see my ballot pics in first post of " share your voting experience" thread) that I voted against because it would make Judicial picks more partisan.

 

[BvBPL]

Selecting judges is tricky business. I'm not sure that any good system exists.

A few states have appointed judges run for retention, rather than election. The idea is that the judge is appointed and then is later given an up or down vote on whether or not to retain the judge at some point. That allows for both some decreased politicization of the judicial system, and allows for electoral input.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Perhaps, but you still have to deal with deciding how to appoint them in the first place. I presume that the decision is probably made by elected officials, much like how the president appoints (and the Senate confirms) Supreme Court Justices. That can still lead to considerable politicization.

 

[topsecret]

In most states in the US, state judges face some form of electoral scrutiny. This can be straight up elections or just votes to determine if they should be retained. In contrast, our federal judges do not face elections and are appointed for life.

Should judges be elected? Should they face retention votes?

Judges should not be in for life, no matter if they are elected or appointed. It's ridiculous.

 

[warpus]

There should be a phase where people vote for candidates, and then from those candidates some sort of a panel selects the best judges..

Maybe have it so that a certain % of top judges getting the top # of votes automatically get in.

Best of both worlds. Probably wont' work.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Voting to retain appointed federal judges is just as silly as electing ultraconservatives to elected positons. In fact, they have much in common.

 

[bhsup]

I don't think federal judges are voted on like that. These are State judges.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I stand corrected. Federal judges are still impervious to such shenanigans.

 

[Glassfan]

Whatever system that's employed for selection is often circumvented by human nature. But since the vast majority of judical decisions are not political, per se, then party politics is somewhat less important than our partisan political propaganda would lead us to believe.

 

[Farm Boy]

Voting for judges is bad and we should feel bad.

 

[ace99]

I don't think there's any really "good" way to choose judges. Every method has some problems whether you have them appointed. elected, selected by a panel of experts, fight to death in a cage-match whatever. I think election is perhaps less objectionable than appointment provided judges aren't allowed to run with a party-id.

 

[Farm Boy]

Retention elections are almost as bad if we're interested in an independent judiciary insulated from the blowing of political winds. I suppose they might form some sort of escape valve on corruption but I think retention elections run a bigger risk of functioning as they are now - serving as a method to remove from office justices who rule on law in methods that are unpopular. What is the justice casualty count in the Midwest for lost retention elections after a judge ruled in favor of gay marriage?

 

[Borachio]

It's crazy, that's what it is.

A judge should know the law. End of story.

You wouldn't vote for a doctor, or a general, or an engineer - in their capacities as doctors, generals, or engineers. Why would you vote for a judge?

But still. What do I know?

How far is the role of a judge political?

What, in the end, is politics?

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is exactly why you shouldn't vote for the more important judges, such as what recently occurred with 3 "liberal" Florida Supreme Court justices. It is just silly "politics".

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think they should. The whole point to checks and balances is wrecked if judges are not outside of partisan politics.

Indeed, but - particularly in the US - the judgements that they make are by nature political judgements. You can't interpret the Constitution without injecting your own political bias at some stage - to use an example, the constitution says that all people are equal, but in the 1900s, women could not vote. Was there a constitutional basis to deny black people the right to vote as well? You can't have a non-partisan view of that: once those judgements are being made, there's a strong argument for having some level of democratic involvement in the appointment of judges.

 

[ChineseWarlord]

Pros for electing judges: Ensure that people are happy with the judge in charge
Cons for electing judges: Money involved so candidates are more likely to keel over to big businesses.

While these might be biased I am ultimately against electing judges. Of course their is no guarantee that you'll have a judge that is more fair minded when appointed.