judgesonmerit.org

This is the question our friends at What About Clients ask today.  In a nutshell, JD Hull explains that judicial elections:

send bad-smelling messages to all clients, all Americans, and the entire world about the nature of justice in America: (1) Judges have “constituents”; and (2) Justice here is “for sale”.

Well, put.  Thanks for breaking this issue down to the key point:  judicial elections are bad for all of us.

Over at What About Clients?, Holden Oliver revisits the argument that partisan election of judges creates an atmosphere in which every decision is open to the inference of bias:

Judges should not have “constituents”–i.e. law firms, and their clients, who make campaign contributions. Right now, in most American states, they do. And there is no way to dress that up.

WAC? is a blog about doing business in a global martketplace, and they don’t mince words when it comes to describing how litigating in that environment impacts the interests of corporate clients.

American litigation at a state level is already frustratingly local and provincial for “outsider defendants”–businesses from other U.S. states and other nations sued in local state courts–who cannot remove to federal courts, the forums where federal judges can and should protect them from local prejudice.

It’s an argument that the folks at WAC? have made a number of times, but it’s worth reminding ourselves how judicial elections affect the interests of litigants big and small.

Over at What About Clients?, JD Hull is again questioning the practice of electing judges. Stating that electing state judges is “beneath all Americans,” Hull looks to Alexis de Tocqueville to provide an opinion from history that elected judges threaten judicial independence. In 1831, Tocqueville described his concerns about electing members of the judiciary:

Some other state constitutions make the members of the judiciary elective, and they are even subjected to frequent re-elections. I venture to predict that these innovations will sooner or later be attended with fatal consequences; and that it will be found out at some future period that by thus lessening the independence of the judiciary they have attacked not only the judicial power, but the democratic republic itself.

We agree with Hull and Tocqueville that electing judges detracts from an independent judiciary, and believe that there is a better alternative. Merit Selection is the best way to ensure the fair and impartial courts that Americans should insist on.

Over at What About Clients?, JD Hull denounces the continued practice in 39 states of electing judges in a post entitled “Why are Americans still popularly electing judges?”

Comparing judicial elections to such antiquated systems as witchcraft laws and debtors prison, Hull clearly makes the point that it is time to find a new way to select judges. He criticizes the poor public perception that judicial elections create, arguing that:

[T]hey send bad-smelling messages to all clients, all Americans, and the entire world about the nature of justice in America: (1) Judges have “constituents”; and (2) Justice here is “for sale”.

Hull closes by encouraging readers to explore our website and Merit Selection:

Do see “Choose Judges on Merit”, a site by our favorite sane voice in the changing wilderness, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.

We’re blushing.

What About Clients? for a post today entitled: “Is that an elected county judge in your pocket or are you just hugely happy to see me?”  The post recaps many good reasons to stop electing judges and switch to a Merit Selection system.  Here’s the core argument:

The popular election of state judges–permitted in some aspect in a clear majority of the states–give the appearance of justice being “for sale”. Elected judges can be especially “bad” for good clients who do business all over the U.S. and the world. Even when elected judges are “good”–and, to be fair, there are some great ones–state systems of popularly-elected judiciary will never inspire much confidence. Elected jurists who hear and decide business disputes are steeped in a taint.

The point: Judges should not have “constituents”, i.e. law firms, and their clients, who make campaign contributions. Right now, in most American states, they do. And there is no way to dress that up.

Well, that makes sense to us.  As Pennsylvania enters general election season, with 8 appellate court seats being contested, now is a good time to ask why we are still electing judges.