Should we elect our judges?

This will air Thursday, Feb 14th at 7:35 am and 12:30 pm on WVPE 88.1 FM - your local NPR station

by Don Wheeler

The South Bend Tribune noted last Saturday that St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak is supporting a drive to replace appointed judges with elected ones. (The appointed judges currently stand later for retention votes.)

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802090303

Mr. Dvorak: "There's a concern that our (St. Joseph County) judges too often do not hold themselves accountable for their decisions." He added that the current system "has failed if for no other reason that no judge has even been stricken from the bench. They have all been retained. It's effectively a lifetime appointment."

State Senator John Broden D - South Bend, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, has a different view. According to the Tribune:

Broden said he did not forsee wavering from his support of St. Joseph County's system for Superior Court Judges.

Broden, a lawyer, said he agrees with the Indiana and St. Joseph County bar associations, which support the concept of judges being seperated from politics as much as possible.

"When you are a candidate, you have to raise money and solicit contributions, Broden said. Often, those who donate to a campaign expect something in return."

John Edwards makes this point a lot. "You can't be with these people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn't work!"

And a judge needs to be able to challenge anyone.

Mr. Dvorak makes a credible case that reform is needed. As my friend and attorney, Chuck Leone pointed out to me, we could assume all judges' performances are above reproach, but...

Let's assume not. Beefing up, putting teeth into, (choose your own metaphor), the retention voting process seems the first thing to work on. There's obviously interest in the situation, so an independent review board involving citizens could be formed to "grade" judges on their performance. This board would need to have hearings for people with grievances, and be willing to study judges' records carefully. They would then need to produce their findings ahead of retention votes for the judges.

This would be a lot of work and would need to be done with great care.

But popular elections of judges carries some significant potential downsides.

As Senator Broden highlights, potential corruption is a concern. And even if it weren't blantant, our system depends upon impartiality of the judiciary, so even a slight "shading" is a problem.

And how would a citizen sniff out potential leanings? I suppose he or she could file a freedom of information request for campaign finance reports. Assuming that action, if the voter then also knew the leanings of the contributors, he or she might be able to infer certain leanings of the candidates. Do most people go to this sort of effort before voting for local officials? For those that do, how easy would it be to figure all this stuff out?

And how about this. I consider myself pretty well informed, know some basics about law... But I have no belief I have the background needed to determine who will be a competant judge, and who would not be. I would have a lot of work to do to get to that point, and frankly, I'd rather leave it to those who already have that knowledge.

With a good opportunity to remove those found wanting.

That's how I see it.