judgesonmerit.org

California is worried about how increasingly expensive partisan judicial elections affect public perceptions of the courts. California Supreme Justice Ming Chin neatly summed up the problem. “The huge sum of money now required in many states in judicial elections has changed things. . . . How are you going to maintain an impartial court when judges have to raise large sums of money to get elected?”

We are certain that most judges apply the law fairly to the facts of each case before them. But when even a state supreme court justice raises the question of the influence of money on judicial decision-making, the public must surely be worried about this, too.

Justice Chin also pointed out that judges are different from other public officials and that judicial selection should be different too:

In the simplest terms, voters need to evaluate judges differently that the divisive, issue-driven campaigns familiar with other elected officials. Chin then ticked off the standard for evaluating judges, including commitment to the rule of law, the ability to listen impartially to the face of a case and then the courage to apply the law to those facts, ‘regardless of his or her opinion on the issue.’

But when donors wave huge piles of money to bolster the candidacy of a judge solely on party affiliation or a judge’s opinion on controversial issues, it will be increasingly difficult for judges to impartially apply the law.

Litigants shouldn’t have to fear that a judge has been influenced by a contributor to her campaign. Merit Selection, which takes money out of the equation, goes a long way to improving the public’s perception of impartiality in the courts.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS