judgesonmerit.org

Sheila Seuss Kennedy, a professor of law and public policy in Indiana, published an op-ed in the Indianopolis Star making the case against electing judges:

What’s wrong with electing judges? The answer to that question involves the nature of a judge’s job.

The ideal jurist should have solid legal skills, a “judicial temperament,” and unquestioned integrity. Most importantly, he or she must be guided by the rule of law — not the desires of the electorate. People who argue for judicial elections in order to get judges who will be “responsive to the voters” do not understand the role of the judiciary in American law. . . .

In our system, the legislature is the branch of government accountable to the electorate; the judiciary is accountable to the constitution and the law.

This makes sense to us. Judges are different, and it only stands to reason that they should be selected differently than other public officials.  After all, if you treat judges like all other public officials until the moment they take the bench, what guarantees that they will be treated and will act differently from other public officials when they are sitting on the bench?

Kennedy also notes that the electoral process and its emphasis on fundraising cause real concern for the public:

When I was practicing law, it wasn’t uncommon for clients to express apprehension about going to court. Among their concerns was the relationship between the judge and the lawyer representing the adverse party: Were they poker buddies? Had the lawyer contributed to this judge’s campaign? Did he or she practice with a law firm that had hosted a fundraiser for the judge?

It is disturbing that so many people share these worries.  The electoral system fosters these concerns and does nothing to alleviate them.  Merit Selection gets judges out of the fundraising business and recognizes the unique role judges play in our system of government.  It’s time for a change.