Should Supreme Court Justices be elected?

[muon2]

In IL the judges and justices are elected.  An elected judge serves for a term and then rather than face reelection, faces a retention vote after 10 years (6 years for circuit court judges). This takes the pressure off a judge facing an opponent, and they are able to better deal with cases without looking at  the political ramifications. The retention vote in IL requires 60% to vote in favor of retention or it becomes a vacancy.

When a vacancy occurs, the Supreme Court appoints the temporary replacement, but the vacancy is filled by election on the next even-numbered year (primary and general election).

[muon2]

I used to think it would be a good idea to have them elected, but after reading all the arguments I reconsider. But still, I'd like to share some toughts about it:
--Many State Supremem Court Justices are elected. They're decisions seem little worse than any other State Supreme courte Justice.
--Better yet, a lot of states have their all judicial branch elected. Once again, it seems little worse than any others.

You know what happens?  Good judges who uphold the law are booted out by the people for failure to be "tough on crime."  At least, this is the case in Wisconsin.  It's bad enough when DAs are fired by the people because of low conviction rates.  When judges also have a built-in incentive to convict, it kinda undermines the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

WI sounds different than IL in that respect. I've seen many judicial elections and retention votes here at the circuit, appelate and supreme court level. I can't recall any that have been about convivtion rate for criminal cases.

Circuit court elections are generally about experience vs. Bar ratings. For the retention votes, a judge is turned out in only the rarest cases, usually for unethical behavior that gets significant media attention. Even when there was an extremely unpopular decision at the circuit level a few years ago, it did not result in a failed retention bid.

Appellate and Supreme Court elections are even less about conviction. Most are judges moving up from lower courts, and at the circuit level most judges aren't in the criminal division. At best they take a rotation there. The result is again about experience and consistent approval from the lawyers who work with them.

[muon2]

I used to think it would be a good idea to have them elected, but after reading all the arguments I reconsider. But still, I'd like to share some toughts about it:
--Many State Supremem Court Justices are elected. They're decisions seem little worse than any other State Supreme courte Justice.
--Better yet, a lot of states have their all judicial branch elected. Once again, it seems little worse than any others.

You know what happens?  Good judges who uphold the law are booted out by the people for failure to be "tough on crime."  At least, this is the case in Wisconsin.  It's bad enough when DAs are fired by the people because of low conviction rates.  When judges also have a built-in incentive to convict, it kinda undermines the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

WI sounds different than IL in that respect. I've seen many judicial elections and retention votes here at the circuit, appelate and supreme court level. I can't recall any that have been about convivtion rate for criminal cases.

I wish I could find some election ad archives for WI judicial races.  It seems like, whenever there's a hotly contested bench seat, the whole race devolves into which candidate is tougher on criminals.  Qualifications be damned.  We've got to think of the children!  (As if electing the other guy will somehow result in the streets being flooded with drug pushers and pedophiles.)

I'm glad IL is better in this regard.

Around here you might see three candidates each touting themselves as follows:

Candidate A: I've spent more hours in a courtroom than either of my opponents.

Candidate B: I have the highest rating from the IL State Bar.

Candidate C: I'm he only lifelong resident who understands the kind of cases that will come up.

Curiously, I've seen all of these messages win in different elections.

[muon2]

No, I don't believe that justices should be elected at all, but I have thought about the possibilities of appointing them for a limited term--say 10 years.  I think the we need to keep electioneering out of the judicial process at this level to protect judicial integrity. Having set terms would allow us to prevent a single president from determining the courts makeup for generations. How about this?

It is interesting that in states with appointed judges the same argument is used as in states with elected judges. In IL I often hear that it is better to elect the judges because it protects their judicial integrity, otherwise they would be beholden to the politics of the appointing power. I suspect that good judges will do well regardless of the system that produces them.