I confess, I fail to understand the logic behind direct elections for judges. Clearly, the most important qualification is not political beliefs, but a blend of qualifications, experience and judicial philosophy. If vacancies must be filled by election, then those voting should at least be fellow professionals, people able to evaluate the candidates’ credentials. In practice, most of the time that is how things work out, with most people recognising their own ignorance on judicial matters and simply not voting. That may now change.
In California and elsewhere, some Conservative activists have a specific campaign to unseat judges they perceive to be too gay-friendly, and to replace them with people whose most important qualification (in the eyes of the campaign) is their opposition to LGBT equality before the law.
The success of the campaign will depend on a repetition of the traditionally low turnout for these races. I hope that Californians, and voters in other states where the same tactics are being attempted, will alert their communities of the dangers in allowing candidates social values to override issues of professional competence. For better courts, undermine this campaign.
See Edge San Francisco
First off, you’re right that Californians should vote “no” on this referendum. It is a scam to pack the courts with bigots.
However, the direct election of judges is not bad of itself. In my own Great State of Wisconsin, we elect all our judges. The terms are long (10 years for the Supreme Court) and the candidates are non-partisan. Until a recent, regrettable, federal court decision they were even prohibitted from being members of political parties or disclosing which party they preferred.
This system worked very well, and our court has a healthy mix of more liberal and more conservative justices. UNTIL two recent elections in which the chamber of commerce spent more than bothe candidates combined to put two shockingly dim judges on the bench who are utterly beholden to the big
money right. Last year, thankfully, their streak was broken when the outspoken, progressive Chief Justice was reelected in a landslide.
Some have argued that we should abandon the election of judges in the face of the political corruption that put justices Zeigler and Gabelman on the bench, but that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead, I am pleased
to say, we are adopting stricter disclosure rules for outside groups who spend on judicial elections. There has also been a legislative proposal to publically fund judicial races, which would be an excellent reform.
Just because right wing bigots seek to abuse democracy and subvert justice through shadowy big money campaigns is no reason to choose oligarchy instead. Rather, we must bolster democracy to ensure that the voice of the people can be expressed free from corruption- much as you rightly advocate should happen in the Church.
Sometimes the people elect bad officials, but that’s no reason to stop elections.
Thanks Mike, for this input, and for background on the Wisconsin experience. I agree with you - the reason for changing a system is not because it throws up the odd bad result, but because it’s inherently bad. Otherwise, work within the system to improve its functioning.
Judicial elections are right outside my frame of reference, but I’m quite happy to accept that many Americans find they work well. I would not presume to lecture you on how to change your methods. I just hope that you guys can find a way to prevent the inappropriate subversion of your system.