Elected or Appointed Judges? Which method do you think best?

[cali]

In some states judges are appointed by the Governor and/or legislature, in other states they're elected. Which method do you prefer?

Click on the map to find out how the judiciary in your state works.
http://www.ajs.org/js/select.htm

To me, electing judges is just strange.

[rpannier]

1. If they're elected they'll be spending every waking moment trying to get re-elected

God knows what idiotic decisions they'd make to appease the electorate.

[cali]

2. Exactly. And I have to admit

that I as a voter would have a hard time knowing enough to vote with confidence. In Vermont, the appointment system has worked well. We have, I think, an excellent state Judiciary. It seems to be merit based whether a repub or dem is Governor.

[Guaranteed]

3. Judges usually run unopposed, and that is only when

they even have to run again. Often, they only have to be elected once.

[cali]

6. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Here's some contradicting it, from the site in my OP

Judicial races in Alabama became increasingly politicized in the 1980s and 1990s, in large part because of the controversy over tort reform. The size of jury verdicts began to increase during this time, to the extent that Alabama was dubbed "Tort Hell" by Forbes magazine. The legislature passed a tort reform package in 1987, but many of its provisions were declared unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court during the early 1990s. As judicial races took on heightened significance, campaign fundraising became more important. Between 1986 and 1996, expenditures by supreme court candidates grew by 776%. As campaigns became more expensive, they also became more contentious. The 1996 elections were dubbed "the year of the skunk" because of an ad run by an incumbent supreme court justice that alluded to his opponent and featured pictures of a skunk, accompanied by the caption "Some things you can smell a mile away."

And more evidence:

In 1980, Texas became the first state in which the cost of a judicial race exceeded $1 million. Between 1980 and 1986, campaign contributions to candidates in contested appellate court races increased by 250%. The 1988 supreme court elections were the most expensive in Texas history, with twelve candidates for six seats raising $12 million. Between 1992 and 1997, the seven winning candidates for the Texas Supreme Court raised nearly $9.2 million dollars. Of this $9.2 million, more than 40% was contributed by parties or lawyers with cases before the court or by contributors linked to those parties.

To address the perceived impropriety of judges soliciting and accepting large campaign contributions from attorneys and parties who appear before them, the Texas legislature passed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act in 1995. Under the act, limits on individual contributions to candidates in statewide races range from $5,000 from individual donors to $30,000 from law firms. While some commentators believe the law has been successful in curbing the excesses of the late 1980s and early 1990s, others assert that the contribution limits are too generous to have a meaningful effect. For more information about the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, see Judicial Selection Reform: Examples from Six States.

More:

In recent years, both the legislature and the supreme court have enacted various reforms aimed at improving the tone and conduct of judicial elections. In 1999, the legislature imposed limits on contributions to judicial candidates and strengthened disclosure requirements, and it amended the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act to bar political parties from contributing to or endorsing judicial candidates. This provision of the legislation was struck down by a federal court in 2002 as a violation of the First Amendment. In 2002, the supreme court amended the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct to allow litigants to file a motion to recuse a judge when an opposing party or attorney is a major donor to the judge’s election campaign.

btw, it appears as if many states have an appointment process or a mixed process.

[Clark2008]

18. No they don't

Most people don't pay attention to judges until they do something absolutely stupid.

I live in a hybrid state. Circuit judges are elected, appelate judges are appointed WITH the recommendation of the electorate (people vote a judge up or down and the governor or other appointing body can take the vote into consideration).

Trust me - most judges are a shoe-in unless they've let Charles Manson free or appointed a bogus president.

[MiniMe]

4. It depends what level of judge it is

I certainly don't want an elected Supreme Court judge.

[ovidsen]

5. Appointed, without a doubt

He or she is less likely to be influenced by party hacks. no time to be worried about re-election, and he or she has a better chance of getting an okay from the local ABA, which makes a much bigger difference with appointed judges than elected ones.

Look at New York State, where judges with just a high school election can be voted into office. Alabama isn't much better,

I'm not saying the system of appointing judges, with or without legislative approval is perfect. It just seems to be that appointed judes are lots less like likely to be pilitical hacks with axes to grind, and no high school, let alone a college degree.

[ThomWV]

7. Elected - and here's the problem with but also the reason Its best

Elected judges (with lifetime tenure) have a problem, they have to pander to the electorate at some level to get the job and that pandering reflects the mood of the time, which may be far removed from rational judicial policy. However times change and that means that judges elected at one time may be dinosaurs in succeeding times - out of place, archaic policies, not with the times. However over time the average of the community norms will be reflected in the judges elected, and thus long term stability and fidelity to the communal ethos is preserved.

[trof]

8. Supreme court elections in AL have become a money game.

Sux.

[cali]

9. No kidding.

I was just reading about that. Sound like a nightmare for Alabama's justice system.

[TheUniverse]

10. Appointed.

Judges should not be politicians.

[cali]

11. And that's it in a nutshell. Thanks. n/t

[cgrindley]

12. Appointed by the Prime Minister until 64, disqualified from voting

judges should be disenfranchised, they should pay no taxes, ideally, they shouldn't be Americans but seconded into the American criminal justice system from other countries. Actually... there should be some sort of international court of law that handles all laws on the planet.

[cali]

13. That's just insane. Sorry.

I'm a Vermonter, and I want Vermont judges who understand the culture and history of my little state. And I certainly don't want an international court governing local issues and problems. What a friggin' nightmare that would be.

[cgrindley]

14. International justice is the only fair justice

Jena 6 anyone?

[cali]

15. Reforming the judicial system in certain

states is the answer. "International Justice" in local jurisdictions is just wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. It's cultural imperialism, for one thing. Not all cultures have the same standards.

[BadgerLaw2010]

17. Hahaha...no.

It's pulling teeth to even get US states to follow the same sorts of commercial and criminal laws.

Just try blending US law of contracts with foreign law of contracts. A lot of the principles are exactly opposite, even in fellow British-origin countries.

Hell, even try to square the remedy of "specific performance."

[BadgerLaw2010]

16. Appointed with legislative confirmation.

Elections depend on money and slogans. Our last State Supreme Court election in this state was not a shining moment. You also had the losing candidate who had no experience being a judge. I don't think that's a particularly good idea for higher courts.

Appointment can mean moonbats and corrupt and unqualified ones as well, but the legislature is SUPPOSED to do something about confirming those.

You also have a human capital problem. Basically, most people with ability do not want to be lower-level state judges. They can earn more with that law degree elsewhere - it's "safe," "easy" employment for someone with a law degree who knows he/she is marginal. They don't like to lose these jobs, so they try to be inoffensive to the public, which can frequently mean they aren't really ruling on the law.

I'm fairly sure the average, financially poor criminal defendent is stunned at what the legal system actually looks like when he has a real constitutional issue and his case goes to the Circuit Cort of Appeals or Supreme Court.

Otoh, the Federal bench is the dream career destination for a good chunk of the top of the national law school graduating class every year. These people may be ideological, but they are at least highly competent and motivated.

It would be good for the legal system if there was quality control and status on the state bench that at least approached the federal bench.