judgesonmerit.org

Retired federal judge Lee Sarokin praises Merit Selection in his latest contribution to the Huffington Post. He first notes the big problem of money in judicial elections:

Can you imagine a lawyer or litigant walking up to the bench in the middle of a trial and handing the judge a check as a campaign contribution?! Is it any less unseemly if the check was delivered a week or a month before? This is the by-product of judicial elections. The campaigns themselves have become political, demeaning and adversarial. As in any election, there are those who contribute merely to advance the candidacy of someone in whom they believe, but for many there is an expectation or a perception of a quid pro quo. How else does one explain contributions to both of two rival candidates?

He writes that while not perfect, Merit Selection systems using nominating commissions have a track record of putting well-qualified judges on the bench. He believes Merit Selection works better than the money-influenced electoral system, especially because of the lack of relevant information available to the voters.

Sarokin also deflates the argument that elections ensure judges are accountable to the people. He argues that judges are not supposed to be responsive or accountable to the public will, but rather to the laws and the constitution.  Elections can undermine this principle:

Judges should not be treated like American Idol contestants. One of the principal roles of the judiciary is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Election of judges reverses that noble goal and demeans the judiciary. The influence of money should have no place in our judicial system.

Well put.

Former federal judge H. Lee Sarokin offers a thought-provoking blog post on the Huffington Post entitled, “When Does a Campaign Contribution Become a Bribe?“  Judge Sarokin opens with this striking image:

Can you imagine a lawyer or litigant walking up to the bench in the middle of a trial and handing the judge a check as a campaign contribution! Is it any less unseemly if the check was delivered a week or a month before?

He then continues to explain the Caperton decision and the lack of any rule explaining how high a campaign contribution must be to be deemed “too high.”  Judge Sarokin seems to agree with us that it’s not the amount of the donation, it’s the very fact of the donation that is problematic.  He sums this up with an indictment of the judicial election system:

What should be unacceptable is the election of judges. 39 of the states elect judges. Contributions to judicial campaigns now total in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The campaigns themselves have become political, demeaning and adversarial. As in any election, there are those who contribute merely to advance the candidacy of someone in whom they believe. But for many there is an expectation of a quid pro quo. How else does one explain contributions to both of two rival candidates?

Judge Sarokin closes by enumerating additional problems with elections, including the lack of relevant information available to voters and the fact that judicial elections become popularity contests, rather than exercises to find the most qualified judges:

Judges should not be treated like American Idol contestants. One of the principal roles of the judiciary is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Election of judges reverses that noble goal and demeans the judiciary. The influence of money should have no place in our judicial system.