Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argues in a New York Times opinion published today that state judges should not be elected. She argues against lifetime appointments and election of judges:
But judges with a lifetime appointment are not accountable to voters. And elected judges are susceptible to influence by political or ideological constituencies.
This is an election year and, in Montana, judges and justices are elected in nonpartisan elections. Should Montana judges be elected? Should they be subject to political scrutiny based on the difficult and often times controversial decisions they make? Should decisions that enforce individual rights yet penalize the police subject judges to the passions and prejudices of the electorate? Should an unpopular but legally correct decision cost a judge his or her seat? The answer, of course, is no. Here's the method Justice O'Connor suggests:
A better system is one that strikes a balance between lifetime appointment and partisan election by providing for the open, public nomination and appointment of judges, followed in due course by a standardized judicial performance evaluation and, finally, a yes/no vote in which citizens either approve the judge or vote him out. This kind of merit selection system — now used in some form in two-thirds of states — protects the impartiality of the judiciary without sacrificing accountability.
Just food your thought as we Montanans cast our ballots this year. You can read Justice O'Connor's opinion
here.
