Two political scientists recently found that, in states that elect their supreme court judges through a partisan process, there is a strong link between the sources of the monetary contributions that the judges receive and how the judges decide their cases.
I've always found it difficult to justify the election of state judges, especially through the type of partisan process identified in the study. Although the authors do not argue for the elimination of judicial elections (they simply want to find better ways of electing judges), judicial elections do not seem to be a particularly good way of selecting objective decision makers. We should want our judges to decide cases without fear that they will lose their jobs if they uphold the rights of an unpopular person or entity. Most electoral processes seem to foster, rather than eliminate, this fear. What are the best arguments for selecting judges through elections?
Comments