judgesonmerit.org

Over at CoffeeSpoons, blogger Matthew Jones in Indiana makes a good case for why electing judges is a bad idea.  Arguing in favor of maintaining Merit Selection for the Indiana Supreme Court, he observes:

My primary reason for opposing [judicial elections] is that it would require potential justices to wade into the muck and mire of the political arena.  They would have to organize extensive fundraising campaigns.  They would be forced to solicit massive campaign contributions, and to court the approval of special interest groups who would hope to gain from the election of favorable justices.  Rather than exercising only their independent legal judgment, they would have to be concerned about following the political mood of the day, and about pleasing their campaign supporters.  All of this strikes me as being inherently bad.

Sound familiar? This is how things work in states, like Pennsylvania, that elect their judges.  Commenting on how judicial elections look from the outside, Jones writes:

Our neighboring states that have systems for elected appellate judges have seen literally millions of dollars poured into the campaigns of candidates by special interest groups hoping to influence election outcomes.  That situation has to undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Well, he’s right. As we reported yesterday, a USA Today poll revealed that 89% of those surveyed are concerned about the influence of campaign contributions on judges.  It’s time to get judges out of the fundraising business.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS