electing justice?
Here’s an issue I’m torn on: electing judges.
On the one hand, I support giving people much more direct control over their government. On the other hand, it’s tough to know who all these people are, much less, what the position is that they are running for.
What I do know is that the present system contains within it opportunities for the appearance of impropriety. Case in point is today’s Sheila Burke article in the Tennessean:
Fundraising receptions for some of Nashville’s soon-to-be-judges are drawing fire from critics, who question why lawyers who would come before the judges’ courts are being asked to pay up.
These unopposed candidates are trying to pay off their campaign debts — or pay back their own funds that they’ve sunk into their races — by having fundraisers at which donors, many of them lawyers, are asked to give money.
And while there’s nothing legally wrong with the practice, which is said to be commonplace, some think it just looks plain bad and further undermines confidence in the courts.
Others wonder whether the receptions are tantamount to buying justice.
. . . “If attorneys are dumping money into unopposed judicial races, it certainly raises suspicion that Tennessee’s legal system may also be for sale,” [said TN Center for Policy Research president, Drew Johnson.]
A couple months ago, local blogger and attorney Roger Abramson wrote about why he wasn’t even voting in the May judges primary. He laid out a good case for why there shouldn’t be partisan judicial races.
. . . there’s just something unseemly about someone who is supposed to be impartial on the job going around trolling for votes from people and getting endorsements from groups. For similar reasons, I also have a real problem with judges running under partisan banners.
As for me, I haven’t yet early voted. I know who I’m voting for in all of the races on the first page of the ballot, but I haven’t had time to figure out what to do with many of the judicial races.
Are partisan judicial races, and our current system of election funding a problem? If so, what are potential solutions?
July 24th, 2006 at 7:37 am
This state (or city) is completely backwards in which races are partisan. You have a city council, legislators, who do act like partisans. Then you have Judges, who can’t even answer a questionnaire for fear of having their personal views known. I think the state judicial positions should be up for review on the ballot, but electing judges seems like a waste of ours, and their, time.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:44 am
This is a complicated and therefore difficult issue, with strong arguments on either side. It is further complicated by including very fundamental issues of how we are governed; chiefly separation of powers, representative reupblic versus democracy, and the roles(or even desirability of)parties. With that said, I basically agree with your framing of the question. On the issue of General Sessions judges, I agree with Churchill’s(?) sentiment on democracy-it strikes the best balance between local control and independence. You also have the current appellate court check on “mob rule” excesses of democracy. These judges are appointed, subject to retention votes, with which I agree.
The issue of party races is a much harder issue. The only contested Davidson County judicial race provides a real life case study. The Democrat nominee ran multiple commercials on today’s “townhall meeting” on the Senate primary on WLAC. She opens stressing her experience and juidicial independence from politics, but ends with highlighting her support from Republican party officials and conservatives. Is she for non-partisan juidicial races? If so, why didn’t she run as an independent and make non-partisanship a centerpiece of her campaign. Also, why the commercial on a program about a partisan primary? What % of her media buys does this represent? I would personally think the best solution for the currently elected judges would be to have competitive two party race. These districts are small enough that a modest budget race could succeed in a primary. Candidates could campaign on the broad issues of judicial philosophy and who best represents her/his party’s philosophy. In the general election financing could come from the general party, insulating it from the flaws cited in the article. While this solution has major flaws(primarily the ability of candidates not to sink into the same partisan and personal empire building influence peddling mire we have too much of now), I propose it as the worst possible system except for all the others I have heard of. I encourage others to put forth a better.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Robert Bork had it right when he said that he was totally opposed to appointing judges, but also totally opposed to electing them. I don’t have an answer, and there are merits to each system. Indeed, I’ve long thought it useful to have a “mixed system” (especially for appellate courts). For example (and this is just one possible combination), imagine amending the state constitution so that there were 7 (instead of a 5) justices: one elected in a partisan race from each Grand Division, one from each Grand Division appointed by the Governor (without an up/down retention “electionâ€), and then have the Chief Justice elected statewide in an up/down retention election following appointment by the Governor. (Staggered terms would also be advisable here.) This is just one idea. Another scheme could, in a manner somewhat akin that of Virginia, give power to the legislature to appoint some members. In the end, I think both electing and appointing have such drawbacks that no one system is to be preferred to the other.
July 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Mr. Krumm: I’m curious about your candidacy for public office. May I ask: What office are you running for? And are you a Repubican or Democrat? I can’t tell from looking at your web site.
Thank you.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Ms. Blum,
I am a candidate in the Republican primary for the 21st Senate District. Also in the Republican primary is Manuel Fonseca, a captain in the Nashville Fire Department.
On the Democratic side is the incumbent, Senator Douglas Henry who has held the seat since 1970, and Gary Pennington, who I’m afraid I don’t know much about.
Here is a good table showing what all four candidates in this race think about certain issues.
Let me add just one more thing. This is the only one of the 17 senate races in the entire state of Tennessee where both parties have contested primaries. There should be sixteen more just like this. That alone is example enough of how incumbency has become too important.
Sincerely,
Bob Krumm