• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elected Judges: Should they exist?

Elected judges: Should they exist?

  • Total voters
    32
Judges should be apolitical, from the most minor to the chief supreme court judge.
I am most pleasantly surprised that I am in the overwhelming majority .. People must know the individual who they are voting for via debates , position papers, "direct relationship" , etc.. Judges should not be "known" in the same manner as politicians ...They should be "above" that ..
 
Was reading an article about this, and ran across something I had not realized.

Apparently, in some states, judges are elected in "non-partisan" elections.
https://ballotpedia.org/Nonpartisan_election_of_judges

Which sounds like it would at least be slightly better than electing judges the same way we elect governors, congress members, etc.
Strict limits on how and where they can fundraise/campaign might help as well. Perhaps no fundraising at all, but some kind of "campaign fund" that is public and distributed to equally to all candidates?


I can see several ways that judicial elections could be improved (in terms of avoiding conflicts of interest for the candidates) - assuming elimination is not an option.
 
The Mark said:
Well, we're probably going to be hearing about the supreme court vacancy for the next year at least...

But in most states, judges are elected.

From what little I've seen, there is far too little oversight of or attention paid to judicial elections.

I recall in the last judicial elections in my state, many of the incumbents were running unopposed.
For that matter a judge involved in a scandal for apparently being part of an email chain among some state officials involving what is basically porn, racism, bigotry, and damn near anything else you can name, was still on the ballot. How does that even happen?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...411a76-a374-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html

For that matter, I now recall an issue wherein judges were quite literally being paid kickbacks by a private juvenile detention center company for sending them children who did not deserve the sentence they received.

That was THIS ****: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Don't get me started on the ridiculously obvious conflict of interest apparent in private prisons, goddammit.

Personally, I'm starting to wonder if judicial elections are actually able to elect the best judges for an area.
It seems like there are multiple conflicts of interest involved.
For example, a judicial candidate basically has to get campaign funds from people who they may later judge in a case.
And, in many cases, convince people who normally don't even bother thinking about or understanding even part of the judicial system that they're the best candidate - how do you do that?
Our normal system of election seems designed to be nearly incapable of electing a good judge.

An example article I found after a brief search:
An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections - The Atlantic

So, the question.

Elected judges: Should they exist?


Apologies if that was somewhat of a rant.
Click to expand...
I say no.We elect politicians on what laws they may enact or repeal. Should a judge really be elected on what cases he or she may be the judge of? I think not. It provides an incentive for judges to rule in court cases that may favor the judge getting reelected instead of making rulings based on what the law says.
 
I prefer the system we have, while flawed and often judges given the position can often be incompetent idiots the People also elect some of the same. I do agree with possibly extending elected judges out to longer terms as it will stop some of the politicalizing of their judgments and making it a little easier to remove selected judges that are shown to be incompetent.
 
Beaudreaux said:
State level courts, and their judges, are very different than courts and judges on the federal level. There is a reason that the founders chose to have federal court judges appointed for life - to keep them separate and apart from the body politic and the adverse influences of needing to run for office on a regular basis - they could just focus on the law, and only the law.

State courts are closer to the people to where the people may want to have their courts and judges more accountable to the people, as are the state legislatures. Regardless, each state has the power to create, manage, and organize its courts according to whatever rules of procedure they deem proper and correct for their state's citizens - as an example, most states are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law. Louisiana as the only contrary example has their civil law based on French and Spanish codes and ultimately Roman law, while their criminal and administrative law bears a lot of resemblance to the Napoleonic Code (being both were developed at the same time and Louisiana's first laws were written in French), the Louisiana State Civil Code is based more on Spanish Law and Tradition.
Click to expand...

Closer to the people also mean subject to political pressure in some cases.
Recall the State Supreme Crt Justice who ordered Probate Judges not to issue Marriage Licenses to SS couples. After SCOTUS had made their ruling.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore Says Gay Marriage Ban Still In Effect - Towleroad

He is up for election in a few years.
 
JANFU said:
Closer to the people also mean subject to political pressure in some cases.
Recall the State Supreme Crt Justice who ordered Probate Judges not to issue Marriage Licenses to SS couples. After SCOTUS had made their ruling.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore Says Gay Marriage Ban Still In Effect - Towleroad

He is up for election in a few years.
Click to expand...

There's a reasonable argument to be made for both sides of this issue. I just took one and ran with it. I didn't actually take a side.
 
akrunner88 said:
I've heard too many valid arguments on both sides of the issue to have an opinion on the topic. Justice is supposed to be blind, and therefore leaving their nomination up to the public opens yourself up for biases.

With that said, our political process has become so partisan that this same issue comes up when elected by our officials.

No easy way around this issue to be honest.
Click to expand...
How about random selection among registered voters. This system is sufficient to send people to their death in state sponsored executions. It would be an interesting experiment. Sure, judges are supposed to follow the law but I don't know that has a lot of meaning for current judges.
 
Eric7216 said:
How about random selection among registered voters. This system is sufficient to send people to their death in state sponsored executions. It would be an interesting experiment. Sure, judges are supposed to follow the law but I don't know that has a lot of meaning for current judges.
Click to expand...

I'd rather some kind of committee be formed that contained legal experts, a few experts in various sciences and even religion (although I personally dislike the last), and a few politicians for good measure.
This committee would then select qualified and capable judicial candidates.

Those judicial candidates would then be presented to the public in a campaign funded by the public (no donations or fundraising done by the candidates).
They would have their credentials and past activities aired in televised debates and ads.
No affiliation with political parties would be allowed - they would all be independent - but they could have positions that agreed with a given party, and a party could "endorse" them, should they wish to.


OR...something like that.
 
The Mark said:
Well, we're probably going to be hearing about the supreme court vacancy for the next year at least...

But in most states, judges are elected.

From what little I've seen, there is far too little oversight of or attention paid to judicial elections.

I recall in the last judicial elections in my state, many of the incumbents were running unopposed.
For that matter a judge involved in a scandal for apparently being part of an email chain among some state officials involving what is basically porn, racism, bigotry, and damn near anything else you can name, was still on the ballot. How does that even happen?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...411a76-a374-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html

For that matter, I now recall an issue wherein judges were quite literally being paid kickbacks by a private juvenile detention center company for sending them children who did not deserve the sentence they received.

That was THIS ****: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Don't get me started on the ridiculously obvious conflict of interest apparent in private prisons, goddammit.

Personally, I'm starting to wonder if judicial elections are actually able to elect the best judges for an area.
It seems like there are multiple conflicts of interest involved.
For example, a judicial candidate basically has to get campaign funds from people who they may later judge in a case.
And, in many cases, convince people who normally don't even bother thinking about or understanding even part of the judicial system that they're the best candidate - how do you do that?
Our normal system of election seems designed to be nearly incapable of electing a good judge.

An example article I found after a brief search:
An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections - The Atlantic

So, the question.

Elected judges: Should they exist?


Apologies if that was somewhat of a rant.
Click to expand...


Actually my state has a pretty good system for it. There is a small booklet the elections dept puts out and it includes each judge. their time on the court. it includes a review/rating from both lawyers and other judges as well as one from the public. and it includes notes of any rulings they did that were overturned etc. then it lets you vote if you think they should be removed or stay in their position.
 
SocialD said:
Actually my state has a pretty good system for it. There is a small booklet the elections dept puts out and it includes each judge. their time on the court. it includes a review/rating from both lawyers and other judges as well as one from the public. and it includes notes of any rulings they did that were overturned etc. then it lets you vote if you think they should be removed or stay in their position.
Click to expand...
How do they deal with new judges?
 
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
 


A good rundown as usual from John Oliver.
 
Deuce said:


A good rundown as usual from John Oliver.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough I was watching some of his episodes and this one is what sparked my thoughts on the issue.

It helped of course that we've had some shady ****e going on in Pennsylvania with judges on occasion.
 
The Mark said:
Oddly enough I was watching some of his episodes and this one is what sparked my thoughts on the issue.

It helped of course that we've had some shady ****e going on in Pennsylvania with judges on occasion.
Click to expand...

For me the infuriating part was judges hitting up lawyers for campaign funding. As Oliver pointed out, it's harder to come up with a better poster boy for "conflict of interest"
 
Yes elected judges with "term limits". This appointed for life judge thing has every bit as many flaws as an elected judge. Either way we have to limit their tenure.
 
lpast said:
Yes elected judges with "term limits". This appointed for life judge thing has every bit as many flaws as an elected judge. Either way we have to limit their tenure.
Click to expand...
I'm frankly more concerned with the flaws inherent in requiring judges to run for election.

Multiple conflicts of interest there.

If we could somehow put the election of judges in a restricted framework that did not allow those conflicts (publicly funded elections seems a good idea), it might be better.
But elections basically require judges (at least in my state) to run for office as a politician, which seems in many ways directly opposed to the type of thing we want them to do when in office - adjudicate fairly and impartially.
 
The Mark said:
I'm frankly more concerned with the flaws inherent in requiring judges to run for election.

Multiple conflicts of interest there.

If we could somehow put the election of judges in a restricted framework that did not allow those conflicts (publicly funded elections seems a good idea), it might be better.
But elections basically require judges (at least in my state) to run for office as a politician, which seems in many ways directly opposed to the type of thing we want them to do when in office - adjudicate fairly and impartially.
Click to expand...


Id rather have the voters choose their poison than it being based on hyper partisanism by those that are in power at the time. I believe the best way is elected with term limits. I realize there are problems with both means
 
Carjosse said:
No, judges should not ever be elected, ever, period.
Click to expand...

They should be here in Sweden as we do not have juries, semi-colon. (Sticking 'period' on at the end of an opinion does not give it added weight, exclamation mark).
 
Sweden said:
They should be here in Sweden as we do not have juries, semi-colon. (Sticking 'period' on at the end of an opinion does not give it added weight, exclamation mark).
Click to expand...

We don't have juries most of the time either, but that is still no reason to elect judges. Besides judges have the power to override juries.
 
lpast said:
Id rather have the voters choose their poison than it being based on hyper partisanism by those that are in power at the time. I believe the best way is elected with term limits. I realize there are problems with both means
Click to expand...

I disagree. Election pressures cause judges to sentence unusually hard in election years. Justice is being subverted by political concerns. Other concerns are secondary.
 
Deuce said:
I disagree. Election pressures cause judges to sentence unusually hard in election years. Justice is being subverted by political concerns. Other concerns are secondary.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree that happens and on the other hand appointed judges do make decisions on party concerns. Its a double edged sword neither is squeaky clean. I believe that letting the people vote is the lesser of the two evils
 
lpast said:
I dont disagree that happens and on the other hand appointed judges do make decisions on party concerns. Its a double edged sword neither is squeaky clean. I believe that letting the people vote is the lesser of the two evils
Click to expand...

Well if we're going to do so, are there ways to constrict the judicial election process so that conflicts of interest are minimized or eliminated entirely?
 
The Mark said:
Well if we're going to do so, are there ways to constrict the judicial election process so that conflicts of interest are minimized or eliminated entirely?
Click to expand...

No of course not but you knew that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom