In theory, judicial elections seem like a great idea -- judges are accountable; it's democratic; we're not stuck with a bad judge for life...
But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.
The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?
Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.
Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.
Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and
robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.
As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie
Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.
What about elections from a small group of
pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?
