8 ms·

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out a

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issues like who your local judges are and how they rule.

justaguyhere 6y ago
The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the same crime during election years than non election years ("tough on crime"). Elections are a popularity contest in a way, even well informed voters do not always make rational decisions. If one doesn't have elections to worry about, he/she can do their job to the best of their ability without thinking about pleasing anyone or pandering to any one group, just good old honest work. The moment they have to think about elections, things change. What kind of judge would you like to have - someone who is totally honest and fair without giving a crap about what others think, or someone who is trying to be popular?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- salawat 6y ago
  Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they become the subject of an ethics investigation.
  - justaguyhere 6y ago
    I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.
  - jogjayr 6y ago
    What about appointed judges with a long term? 10 or 12 years - that's longer than legislators or executive branch people. It gives them more independence but also ensures a turnover of people and ideas. Do it on a rolling basis so that every 1 or 2 years a judge from the court has to step down.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Still somewhat leery of it, in particular with double the term length of a Senator. The longer in office, the more attractive a target for graft one becomes. I think Senators may be the upper limit I would be willing to see without reaffirmation. Then again, maybe you could make a longer term work with some sort of "anti-election" mechanism. You vote in/appoint/have judges nominated by the bar, whatever, and periodically, a dismissal election is held. If a certain threshold of votes for dismissal/no-confidence are cast, then that triggers a conventional election/run-off for that judges spot. In that sense, the judge no longer has to actively politik, though those vying for the spot are free to campaign to try to get people displeased enough to trigger an election. It still seems like it may only work with a populace who stays on top of their judges, but I actually kind of like the idea because in theory, good judges would never really be upset from business as usual, bad ones would very quickly become apparent in theory, since the number of corrupt supporters would be very unlikely to dwarf the number of "victims" of the judges corrupt acts, and you get away from some of the politicization of the position except when the public clearly has a change in the winds of policy in mind, in which case the election may put the judge back in office, but with renewed attention to the change in civil sentiment. I don't know, it just feels better to me that way. I mean I do kinda get where Go's coming from, and I semi-dig it. I just don't think judges should ever be more than arms length away from the people whose lives they impact most.
pnutjam 6y ago
In Indiana, you can pull up a judge's cases in the court system: https://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2666.htm https://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2666.htm Maybe your state has something similar. I found it useful to read a couple decisions written by the judges on our last ballot.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers.
- basementcat 6y ago
  The reality is there is quite a bit of wiggle room in the interpretation of the law. Someone who is conservative and 'tough on crime' may want a judge who is biased toward stricter prison sentences. Someone who is more liberal may want a judge who shows more leniency and is biased toward finding other ways to rehabilitate the guilty. Its kind of like how two competent people can implement a POSIX compliant operating system in different ways (microkernel or monolithic, emacs vs vi, systemd vs sysvinit).
  - analyte123 6y ago
    Systemd does not aim for POSIX compliance: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6259#issuecomment-312494264 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6259#issuecomment-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- godelski 6y ago
  > What are people voting for them based on? Their qualifications, history, and biases. I mean it isn't like most judges are getting the position without having a law degree, so the majority of them are in fact qualified for the position. So how else do you fill a public position when you have multiple qualified people and a single position. The argument for election is so to reduce nepotism and cronyism.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > biases They should leave them at home if they're a freaking judge!!
basementcat 6y ago
Check the endorsements from local bar associations. Read the endorsements from various news outlets. They may not agree but may provide some background information to help with your choice. You can also (most time consuming) pull court records.
godelski 6y ago
Also that many judges are appointed. > In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. In my last election I had the voting booklet. There were two judges running for a position. One had a website and the other (the incumbent) didn't. Honestly, a lot of candidates I found didn't have websites. If you aren't going to take the time to make a simple website to state your policies I'm not sure I trust you to be transparent and make decisions on my behalf. In 2020 if you don't have a website you are demonstrating to me that you don't want to inform me, the voter, about yourself.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don't understand why a judge would have a website. That's so crazy to me. They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. They're supposed to interpret the law as it's written. They're technocrats. What would you like to see on a judge's website? Their opinions on things? They shouldn't have any personal opinions!
  - godelski 6y ago
    > They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. Like... voters? > What would you like to see on a judge's website? Qualifications, what ideals are important to them, how they handled complex cases, etc > They shouldn't have any personal opinions! Unfortunately they are human, so they do have personal opinions. They are allowed to have personal opinions. They just aren't allowed to have party affiliations. But if you look at the supreme court this is clearly also an absurd notion to expect them to not have leanings.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      This is bat-shit insane to me. The public elect the legislature who write the law... the judiciary implement it according to the legislation. They don't any personal opinions to it, that's not their job at all, they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US? In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's left-handed?

justaguyhere 6y ago

The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the same crime during election years than non election years ("tough on crime"). Elections are a popularity contest in a way, even well informed voters do not always make rational decisions. If one doesn't have elections to worry about, he/she can do their job to the best of their ability without thinking about pleasing anyone or pandering to any one group, just good old honest work. The moment they have to think about elections, things change. What kind of judge would you like to have - someone who is totally honest and fair without giving a crap about what others think, or someone who is trying to be popular?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
salawat 6y ago
Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they become the subject of an ethics investigation.
- justaguyhere 6y ago
  I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.
- jogjayr 6y ago
  What about appointed judges with a long term? 10 or 12 years - that's longer than legislators or executive branch people. It gives them more independence but also ensures a turnover of people and ideas. Do it on a rolling basis so that every 1 or 2 years a judge from the court has to step down.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Still somewhat leery of it, in particular with double the term length of a Senator. The longer in office, the more attractive a target for graft one becomes. I think Senators may be the upper limit I would be willing to see without reaffirmation. Then again, maybe you could make a longer term work with some sort of "anti-election" mechanism. You vote in/appoint/have judges nominated by the bar, whatever, and periodically, a dismissal election is held. If a certain threshold of votes for dismissal/no-confidence are cast, then that triggers a conventional election/run-off for that judges spot. In that sense, the judge no longer has to actively politik, though those vying for the spot are free to campaign to try to get people displeased enough to trigger an election. It still seems like it may only work with a populace who stays on top of their judges, but I actually kind of like the idea because in theory, good judges would never really be upset from business as usual, bad ones would very quickly become apparent in theory, since the number of corrupt supporters would be very unlikely to dwarf the number of "victims" of the judges corrupt acts, and you get away from some of the politicization of the position except when the public clearly has a change in the winds of policy in mind, in which case the election may put the judge back in office, but with renewed attention to the change in civil sentiment. I don't know, it just feels better to me that way. I mean I do kinda get where Go's coming from, and I semi-dig it. I just don't think judges should ever be more than arms length away from the people whose lives they impact most.

pnutjam 6y ago

In Indiana, you can pull up a judge's cases in the court system: https://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2666.htm https://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/2666.htm Maybe your state has something similar. I found it useful to read a couple decisions written by the judges on our last ballot.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers.

basementcat 6y ago
The reality is there is quite a bit of wiggle room in the interpretation of the law. Someone who is conservative and 'tough on crime' may want a judge who is biased toward stricter prison sentences. Someone who is more liberal may want a judge who shows more leniency and is biased toward finding other ways to rehabilitate the guilty. Its kind of like how two competent people can implement a POSIX compliant operating system in different ways (microkernel or monolithic, emacs vs vi, systemd vs sysvinit).
- analyte123 6y ago
  Systemd does not aim for POSIX compliance: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6259#issuecomment-312494264 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6259#issuecomment-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
godelski 6y ago
> What are people voting for them based on? Their qualifications, history, and biases. I mean it isn't like most judges are getting the position without having a law degree, so the majority of them are in fact qualified for the position. So how else do you fill a public position when you have multiple qualified people and a single position. The argument for election is so to reduce nepotism and cronyism.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > biases They should leave them at home if they're a freaking judge!!

basementcat 6y ago

Check the endorsements from local bar associations. Read the endorsements from various news outlets. They may not agree but may provide some background information to help with your choice. You can also (most time consuming) pull court records.

godelski 6y ago

Also that many judges are appointed. > In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. In my last election I had the voting booklet. There were two judges running for a position. One had a website and the other (the incumbent) didn't. Honestly, a lot of candidates I found didn't have websites. If you aren't going to take the time to make a simple website to state your policies I'm not sure I trust you to be transparent and make decisions on my behalf. In 2020 if you don't have a website you are demonstrating to me that you don't want to inform me, the voter, about yourself.

chrisseaton 6y ago
I don't understand why a judge would have a website. That's so crazy to me. They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. They're supposed to interpret the law as it's written. They're technocrats. What would you like to see on a judge's website? Their opinions on things? They shouldn't have any personal opinions!
- godelski 6y ago
  > They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. Like... voters? > What would you like to see on a judge's website? Qualifications, what ideals are important to them, how they handled complex cases, etc > They shouldn't have any personal opinions! Unfortunately they are human, so they do have personal opinions. They are allowed to have personal opinions. They just aren't allowed to have party affiliations. But if you look at the supreme court this is clearly also an absurd notion to expect them to not have leanings.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    This is bat-shit insane to me. The public elect the legislature who write the law... the judiciary implement it according to the legislation. They don't any personal opinions to it, that's not their job at all, they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US? In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's left-handed?