Should we elect judges? (Erin)

First, there's that issue of campaign finance and bias. The SCOTUS decision puts greater pressure on judges to excuse themselves when there's the perception that they might be biased in favor of a campaign supporter, a decision I support--yet I think it also creates a new way to nullify a judge's decision; if a losing party to a case can show that a judge received a significant contribution from anyone even associated with the winning party the losing party can point to this decision to demand a new trial. Unlike the kinds of biases for which judges routinely recuse themselves, too, a campaign contribution connection to one of the parties in the case may not be obvious at first; the judge himself might not even know that some subsidiary of one party or other has been a significant donor.

Second, there's the issue that election campaigning isn't always the best use of a judge's time. We expect our judges to handle a lot of cases in a given year, and the need, in a hotly-contested race, to make speeches, travel to meet with constituent groups, give access to the media for interviews etc. means a portion, possibly a large one, of the judge's time and attention during an election year are going to be demanded by the campaign itself.

Third, and this is the one that bothers me the most, it's very difficult to make an informed and intelligent decision about a judicial candidate on the ballot in an election. Politicians in other races make their opinions on issues, policies, etc. known clearly before an election, and a little careful reading and research is enough to permit a conscientious voter to select candidates he or she really supports. But judges aren't even supposed to voice opinions on issues, as this could interfere with their need to be unbiased and impartial in deciding cases; and merely reading a judge's campaign material provides little information. If he says he's "tough on crime," for instance, does that mean that he's a death penalty advocate, something which I wouldn't support, or that he's committed to harsher sentences for repeat offenders in violent crimes, something which I would?

Even hours of research has sometimes left me with little sense of what a particular judge is really like--and I end up getting the sense that one is merely supposed to note the "R" or the "D" next to the judge's name and vote accordingly. That may be fine for straight-ticket voters, but it doesn't work for me. I take voting seriously, and won't vote for someone I know little to nothing about; if information about judicial races in my area isn't available, I often leave the ballot blank by those names.

Some on the right would claim that even with these drawbacks, it's still better to have elected judges than unelected ones--the perception that judges we don't elect aren't accountable to anybody remains. I say that we solve that problem in two ways: strict term limits for appointed judges, and a healthy return to the practice of impeachment for judges who have overstepped their authority--a process with which we can hold accountable those elected officials who appoint the judges.