judgesonmerit.org

An editorial in the News & Record of Greensboro, NC highlights one of the big problems with judicial elections: voters don’t have a lot of information about the candidates running for the bench.  The editorial makes its point by demonstrating how much people know about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as opposed to the North Carolina Supreme Court justices they presumably voted for:

It’s a safe bet that most Americans know at least a few basic things about Sonia Sotomayor. . . .

In contrast, how many North Carolinians could name even one member of their state Supreme Court?

Probably very few, even though the voters elected each of the court’s seven justices. Judicial elections just don’t generate much interest. As a result, voters choose North Carolina’s Supreme Court justices, and judges at lower levels of the court system, generally with less information about the candidates than they have about someone nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, for whom they can’t vote.

This lack of information, which plagues all states that elect judges, is a problem because conscientious voters crave information on which to base decisions.  Instead, judicial elections provide them with party affilitation, county of residence and some yard-sign or television slogans which usually provide no guidance in determining if someone will make a good judge.

This is just one of many reasons judicial elections don’t make sense.

An editorial in the News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina examines the Caperton decision and how it impacts a state like North Carolina that uses a system of public financing for its judicial elections:

Although most statewide judicial candidates participate in a public campaign financing system, that’s not a safeguard against big-money influence. Blankenship contributed only $1,000 directly to Benjamin’s campaign. He gave $3 million for so-called independent expenditures on Benjamin’s behalf. The same thing could happen in North Carolina.

The editorial contends that the problem stems from the system of electing judges.   John Martin, chief judge of the N.C. Court of Appeals and chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission, concurs.  According to Judge Martin, “‘The real problem is the election of judges.’”

Following Judge Martin’s lead, the editorial argues:

[Judge Martin is] right. Political donors influence governors, legislators and other elected officials. Judges are expected to act with greater impartiality, and they should be challenged when there are reasonable questions. But money impacts elections, and judges may not be blind to where it comes from.

As long as North Carolina holds judicial elections, it may create opportunities for situations like the West Virginia case.

We agree completely.  Elections will always cost money — even when a viable public financing system is in place.  The answer is to get judges out of the fundraising business.  Merit Selection is the way to accomplish this.