CE Week #2: “O’Connor urges end to judicial elections” Sept. 15th
Marcus Donner, photographing on behalf of Seattle University, uses the dining table to take a group photograph of Seattle University law students and faculty with retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Monday on SU’s campus. O’Connor was the featured speaker in a daylong seminar at the school. Seattle TimesSEATTLE – The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court says there’s a serious problem with the government in Washington and many other states: They elect their judges.
Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke Monday at a Seattle University Law School conference. She told a sold-out audience that threats to judicial independence are rising exponentially as more and more money pours into judicial races around the country.
“It’s the flood of money coming into our courtrooms,” O’Connor said. “You haven’t suffered too much of this in Washington – but you will, if you don’t think about this and change it.”
Washington is one of about two dozen states that have elections for at least some judges, from trial courts to state supreme courts. Many judges in Washington are initially appointed to vacancies on the bench, and many run for re-election unopposed. But judges on the state Supreme Court frequently face challengers.
The conference focused largely on questions surrounding the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal, which held that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.
Since 1934, a number of state panels have recommended that Washington do away with judicial elections in favor of a merit-based appointment system.
O’Connor said she advocates a system by which nonpartisan commissions select judges based on their merit. At the end of a judge’s term, voters could decide whether to retain them.
Multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns make it difficult to know whether a judge is deciding a case based on the merits or on concerns about re-election, she said.
She noted that the founders of the country believed it crucially important that federal judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers.
Referring to cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed school segregation, O’Connor said, “Consider whether those hugely unpopular decisions would have come to pass if judges had to stand for upcoming elections.”
O’Connor was a state judge in Arizona before being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. She retired in 2006 and said she has devoted her retirement to trying to abolish judicial elections and to push for a new emphasis on civics education in public schools.
She was joined on a panel by Washington state Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and other judges and lawyers. Alexander said that even though he was almost defeated in an expensive election in 2006, he supports the current system because it’s worked well in the past.
“It’s not perfect and it does need to address the problem of large amounts of money coming into the system without skewing it,” he said.
Serving in a black robe and being addressed as “your honor” can “go to your head. It can be a humbling experience to go through elections,” he said.
A. I learned from this article that the issues surrounding the election of judges are even out there. I’ve seen campaign signs on the streets for judges before but never thought anything of it. The issues do make sense though. I was also unfamiliar with the court ruling of Caperton v. Massey Coal, which seems like it could be a very legitimate problem.
B. Personally, I would have to agree with O’Conner on this subject. There is already too much corruption in politics and having a merit based selection of judges would be a very good way to prevent some of the corruption. Also, I liked the idea of being able to vote to retain the judge after one term, so the people still have a say. Money seems to be a large influence on the policies of politicians rather than what the majority of the people want. It would be nice if there didn’t have to be any sort of campaign to be elected, but this is unpractical because our country, states, and cities are so large. Although, I believe that there is a direct relationship between costly campaigns and corruption. In my opinion, there needs to be a better way of connecting the candidates with the voters than campaigns. I guess the initiative needs to be taken by the people.
C. I would like to know why only about two dozen states have elections for at least some of their judges. Is this really a split issue? Is it that the two dozen states that elect have just not switched over to merit system yet, or the other way around?
Part A: What did I learn?
In the course of my life, I’ve never taken the time to sit down and consider possible changes for our judicial system. Why? Because it hasn’t directly influenced my life. By reading this article, I now understand how our electing Judges would alter how they played out their job. If a Judge were to base his or her decision in regards to how the verdicts would influence his or her polls, then the most popular opinion may be presented, but maybe not the most just. The example the article used was a prime and efficient one: when the courts decided that segregation should be outlawed, it wasn’t the most popular ideology of the time. They made this decision, however, without worry of an upcoming election. They made this decision knowing it was just and sound. If they were burdened with campaign publicity, the results of that trial may have varied directly.
Part B: What do I think of this topic?
What I think about this topic is somewhat of a hard question to answer. I’ve formed an opinion based on the information presented in the article and that is judges should be appointed by merit rather than popular decision in order to guarantee unbiased verdicts. In this way, I believe results will be fair and consistent, rather than in accordance to popular opinion or special interest groups.
Part C: What more do I want to know?
This article sparked an interest of the judicial system in me. I’m cognizant that our Supreme Justice is appointed by POTUS, but I’d like to know how our local Washington Judges and Judicial leaders are selected. Is it by popular vote or governmental selection?
I don’t know much, or anything at all about the supreme court or how it works and i don’t try and pretend too but from what i can tell from reading this short article i am in support of what Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is trying to achieve.
Keep in mind that i probably do not know what i am talking about, but what was said just seems right. Too hire a judge or a justice via merit and their ability rather then their age, it would be alright if it was still high school but they’re old people.
I am always open to criticism.
NO CREDIT: Word Count 106
While reading this piece I learned more about the court and judge systems. I found this rather interesting because I personally do not really know anything about this topic. I find it kind of weird that there are regular elections for judges, I didn’t know that. I think that Washington would have a better court system if we got rid of the judicial elections. I think this because like O’Connor said it is very crucial that judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers. I think that if judges were appointed and not elected they wouldn’t be scared to make the decisions they really want and do what they believe is best for Washington, even if it won’t make the people happy. When elections come the judges may just make decisions based on how their poll will go and that’s not what a judge should be worrying about. Not everyone likes judges, so we shouldn’t make it a popularity contest. Judges should be chosen because they know what they are doing and they will help better our state. I would like to learn more about what all the other states do for their judges. Do all the other judges in states get appointed? Or is there another way besides appointing and judicial elections. I think it would be interesting to learn more about this. Also it would be nice to be able to follow this and see if Washington or any other state changes the way they do this.
I found this article to be very informative, as I did not know much about the judicial processes of our courts. I learned that in some states (including our own), judges run campaigns in an electoral process like politicians. One of the main reasons I found this article to be so enlightening is because it was factually based versus a spewing of opinion.
I think that by electing judges based off of merit gives judges the “freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers.” I believe our judicial branch is just as vital as law enforcement in terms of policemen. With out the right judges to send criminals to prison and pardon the innocent, we cannot keep our citizens safe. I think this is an issue that really get looked over, some people think courts and trials do not apply directly to them. If you were falsely convicted of a crime, you would want the best judicial system possible to serve you justice.
As the article states that “a number of state panels have recommended that Washington do away with judicial elections” for over 80 years, why have we not switched to a merit based system? Possibly, do the other states that have judicial elections posses similar policies/campaign-perks/anything in common which would give them reason to keep their existing system?
A. Sandra Day O’Connor fears that the election process by which some states elect their judges has a significant affect on the judges decisions. Elections mean winning the people over and making unpopular decisions could lose re-election for you, which then causes the judge to make decisions to please the public and disregard other important factors. O’Connor stated that the founding fathers thought it crucial federal judges have the freedom to make decisions without the pressure of poll numbers skewing their thinking.
B. While she makes a point that elections can skew judges decision making, I believe that allowing the public to decide who will be their judges is important. In this country we have the right to elect some of our important officials. The former Attorney General of Alaska, Talis Colberg, made a point that tampering with our laws too much can lead to a decent that eventually makes a significant change. While this may be a little far-fetched, after all it is only one amendment, if we continue to change and change and change we might find ourselves at a place we don’t want to be in. This time it’s how judges are put into office, but next time it could be something else and then something else and a chain occurs. Besides, elections are humbling for officials.
C. The process in which all our officials are elected aren’t clear to me and I’d like to correct that. Also, I’d like to learn where we derive the power to elect our judges and how we change that if it is possible.
2.) POST: Write on at least two of the articles/opinion pieces by doing
the following in 1-2 paragraphs each:
A. Answer the question: “What did you learn by reading the piece?”
I have never been one to dabble in the judicial information, but reading this opened up my eyes to how much corruption there can really be within our system. I learned that many decisions that the judges make are based off of their thoughts of re-election and/or poll counting. I also did not know that money made a huge deal of that the Judges campaigns and such. I have never heard of a system of selecting judges off of merit. It is interesting and seems so plausible to me.
B. Answer the question: “What do you think about this particular topic
or issue?”
Oh yes, I believe money corrupts many. Especially those in the judicial standards. Or in any political standards really. It makes me sad to know that money and worries of re-election (all benefits for one-self) can drive a campaign or decision in a certain way. To me, it is all ultimately selfish and cannot be taken back due to all the greed placed in it. “She noted that the founders of the country believed it crucially important that federal judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions without worrying about poll numbers.” Yes! This is exactly what I wish for everyone to comprehend. In my opinion, the judge (since chosen off of merit or elected) would be in his/her right mind to make decisions based on whether he/she thinks it is morally right to do so. Not to keep the popularity up like some elementary school kid would do. So, as you can tell, I am on the side with the merit system.
C. Answer the question: “What do you want to know more about related
to this topic?”
What exactly does nonpartisan mean? How exactly does a “state panel” work and what is it? The information that I would want to learn is petty for I am content with what I have read in this article. I Give Kudos to whoever wrote this, for to me, the article did not leave out many details at all.
This is in response to Bree Ferris:
I see that you think it is important that the public have a say in their judges and I personally disagree. I don’t think it should really matter what they want to some point. I mean they are the judges they are going to make the decisions on what happens to people therefore they will never be fully liked by everyone. We need judges that will focus on their job and only that. Also with your thoughts on change, we are always changing and we will always change. The public and population strive for that and even if we get to a point where we don’t like the change it doesn’t matter because it is going to change again on of these days. The world is, and always will be changing.
In Response to Bree Ferris:
I’m going to disagree with you when you say that having the public decide the judges is a good thing and that we have the right to. I believe in selecting our judges based on merit. Sometimes when we vote we choose the person who has a cleverer campaign, who looks better, or who is generally more popular. Some people just don’t even understand a candidate’s position, especially if heir ideas aren’t broadcasted on the news every day. If judges are selected based on merit, then their decisions will be fairer. Also, the outcome will not be the result of a judge just trying to win a re-election, like stated in the article. Overall, I think it would be best for our judges to be selected based on their merit.
In response to Bree Ferris:
As many other people have already stated, I’d have to completely agree with Sandra Day O’Connor, and not necessarily disagree with you, but try to point out her points in a more vital way.
Firstly, you and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander pointed out that elections can be humbling. I think the opposite though. Elections can go to a person’s head, making them think they are better than others because they won and the other did. Explain how that is humbling?
Second, I agree that in our Democracy we should have the right to elect important officials, but from day one of America the President has had the right to appoint judges to the Judical Branch, and I find this very important in order to take out all bias that could come up, as in example to Brown vs. The Board of Education. You did mention that Attorney General of Alaska, Talis Colberg, was elected without making significant changes and unfairness, but still think “what if”? The point is the possibility of it, and I once heard from a very wiseman (K-Dawg), it’s about the One Percent Doctrine, there’s that one percent chance the judge could take away from our countries foundations in order to win the next election.
Not exactly the 1% doctrine, but the logic in what you are saying is applicable in this instance. Remember, the 1% doctrine refers to the threat of terrorism and the need to prevent another 9/11 type attack or something worse (more catastrophic) even if there is only a 1% chance of it occurring, we have to be proactive and do something about it. Kautzman
Jeremy Wales:
Non-partisan democracy (also no-party democracy) is a system of representative government or organization such that universal and periodic elections take place without reference to political parties.
A state panel, to me, is a committee that comes together to talk and work on certain issues. I did some reaserch, and didn’t find a definition for state panel, but this website below may help.
http://www.wghalliance.org/newsroom/state-panel-look-economic-contributions-global-health
In response to Bree Ferris:
I don’t think that it would be the best idea to let the people pick who their judges are. Sometimes the people just go with what sounds good against what would actually be good. But, then again sometimes the people do make good decisions. Not all people should be allowed to have a say in it. Only people that know what it really going on.
In response to Carley Ross,
I understand where your coming from, saying that people of power should actually deserve to be there, mainly based on their experience rather based on their merit.
But when i think of the word merit, the words that come to me are know-how, knowledgeable, trustworthy and so on. So why should a person not be put into place when they have those character traits?
Rather then put a person in a position of power just because they’ve been in like for 50 years, put the person who would do the best job based on their merit and experience will come.