3 ms·

Judges are hard to vote on.. I usually can't find much on the internet on them. In Colorado, for the past 30-or-so years, there's a "State Commission on Judici

Judges are hard to vote on.. I usually can't find much on the internet on them. In Colorado, for the past 30-or-so years, there's a "State Commission on Judicial Performance" and they review the judges and it's added to the voter booklet. They put it online: http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2016 http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2... And an example of one of their reviews: http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret=1095 http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret... It's not perfect.. they recommend all of the judges be retained. No matter how bad they are. So you have to ignore that, and read the review which seems more informative (IMO at least).

gizmo686 10y ago
There is a line of thought that says that judges should not be elected (which most of the world follows), because being subject to election forces them to make the popular decision, instead of the legally correct one. In this light, there is very good reason to recommend that judges be retained; as having judges be worried about retention causes real problems for our judicial system.
- jrockway 10y ago
  At least in my district (Brooklyn), the judges have 14 year terms, and I think that is a good compromise between accountability to the electorate and freedom from the flavor of the month. To get onto the appeals circuit (may be misusing that term), they have to then be appointed by the governor. So I think this is a fine system, if I actually knew who I was voting for.