Comments

The Disruption of Judicial Elections. — 3 Comments

  1. For anyone who naviely bought into the specious arguments supporting merit selection and retention elections as opposed to the current system, all you need do is look at the few states which chose to go with retention elections to see what a sham it is. They have confirmed that the effect of obscene amounts of money – from out of state interests in particular – has only been magnified, and are being used to remove judges who do not toe the party line in their decisions.

    Unless appointments AND retention decisions are made by a large, truly bipartisan committee, the composition of which is not subject to the influence of politicians, “merit selection/retention” will never work any better than the present system and – as is being borne out – is far worse in terms of the ability of “special interests” to wage war on prospective and current appointees in order to advance a political agenda.

    “Special interests” have no interest in true “merit selection” – they want “their people” on the courts to advance their interests and are willing to spend whatever it takes to gain control of the courts.

    • Gerry,
      Believe me, I’m not endorsing merit selection/popular retention as a preference. The timing of your comment is fortuitous. In my judicial extern class today we were discussing the horrors of single-issue targeted retention elections in Iowa and Florida. As I told my students, what may have started out as a kinder gentler system no longer is
      MBB

  2. And the consequences of passage of Issue 2 would render even merit selection a nightmare.