Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
WDYT of Judicial Elections?
Minnesota is holding elections for its judicial officers for the first time this year. Well, sort of. Previously, Minnesota judges were appointed by the governor and then "re-elected" every 6 years (I think). This year, instead of gubernatorial appointments, people are "running" for judge. I believe this is just district court judges, but that's only because I haven't seen any signs or fliers for people running for Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. They can't run under a particular party, but they can take contributions from the party and be "endorsed by" key local members of the party, etc.
I hate it. I think there needs to be some oversight and mechanism for removal of the "bad" judges (everyone in the legal profession generally agrees on who the few bad ones are), but it makes me uncomfortable that judges are allowed to play partisan politics to get on the bench.
Thoughts?
Re: WDYT of Judicial Elections?
We have elected judges here. I don't like it, but probably because I don't have a lot of cash I'm just dying to donate to reelection campaigns, and firms/attorneys feel pressured to contribute.
I don't think the politics are too partisan re: judgeships, though. I vote without regard to party affiliation on judges, and most voters I know do too. (In my county, Dems tend to get elected anyway, but that's because certain Italian and Irish last names rule the day.) There's a certain level of decorum still versus other political offices.
Having lived in Massachusetts (where no judges, as far as I know, are elected) until I was 30... then moved to Washington, where it seems like they all are...
I don't like it at all.
Back in Ma. I knew somebody on the Governor's (bipartisan) committee that picked, vetted and recommended judges... these people were screened to the max, they were pushed in all kinds of ways by lawyers and judges... it made for a smart judiciary that wasn't afraid to make the tough decisions (just look at the gay marriage issue!)
Here, they're all politicians... worried if they make an unpopular decision they'll be voted out... but sometimes judges have to do what's right, even if it's unpopular.
I am the 99%.
I'm with you.
My dad was judge for 1 year. A new judgeship (bringing the total to 6) was created in my county (in Indiana this is the 'superior court' level), and the governor appointed him to it because of his credentials. Having spent 23 years as Chief Deputy Prosecutor under 1 republican and 2 different democrats for 27 years total in the prosecutor's office, he was honestly, I believe, the best person in my home town to take the judgeship which would handle 50% of all of criminal cases.
He set up the new court, created an efficient schedule, and a democrat friend from high school (headed to law school this fall, I think) who had previously said he wouldn't vote for a republican, served as the foreman of a jury in my dad's court and as a result, changed his mind and vote.
My dad was only appointed for a year, during which he had to campaign to keep his job for the next 6 years. In his case, there were parties, and since it was a pretty low-profile race compared to mayor and prosecutor, he lost by a party margin 2 dems to 1 rep. His opponent was a circuit court judge with no criminal law background and a less prestigious law degree. A nice guy, sure, but knowing lots of people in the know in my hometown, my dad was definitely better qualified.
So, basically, I agree with you. When judges have to fundraise to keep their jobs, it's a lot easier for alliances to be made. Furthermore, this is a job that requires professional skills. I think it's pretty silly we elect coroners, too. The people don't know and really can't understand the scope of the responsibilities of these positions. How can they vote on them? This is why, in professions like law, banking, and medicine, the people hiring attorneys, investment bankers and doctors have an intricate working knowledge of those professions themselves. Typically, they have done those jobs in the past or are currently doing those jobs.
carolina - I'm glad to hear partisanship tends to stay out of it there. I hope that's what happens here, but I'm afraid we're going in the opposite direction. I've gotten fliers from everyone running for judge in my district and every single one has something like "endorsed by X, Y, and Z politicians" with pictures of them standing with said politicians but very little about what would make them qualified for a judgeship.
My district's pretty liberal, but it bothers me that people who don't know anything about the judicial candidate's qualifications... or if the person even IS qualified (cause as far as I can tell, anyone can get their name on the ballot)... are going to be deciding who gets on the bench.
Exactly. Is this a unity horse issue?
I think it just might be...
Wooohooo!
I don't understand elected judges. It makes no sense.
Here's another reason to oppose them (well for me anyway). I don't like the laws that say convicted felons can't vote. Well, I'm on the fence about them being able to vote in prison, but I do think their right should be restored when they get out. Though one of the arguments used in denying them that right is that there are places where judges are elected and it's bad for the judges because then felons become a voting block. Or something. I don't totally understand it. But, it is tied to judges being elected.
I just got out of bed. I apologize for this being noncoherent. I just made the mistake of checking the Nest before my coffee, and got all excited about a unity horse issue. I need help.
I agree and hate those laws, too. The good thing is we don't have them in Minnesota. Full voting rights are restored once the entire sentence & probation (if any) is completed.
my read shelf:
In theory I like the idea of judges running for re-election because it provides a check on the judiciary. ?
In practice, i'm not such a huge fan.?
Yeah. I think judges should be treated like other professionals:
Hired by a committee and reviewed by a committee. This is a really prestigious job that requires highly educated and ethically dedicated individuals. Voters simply don't have the resources to truly evaluate those. Most don't even pay attention to that race at all.
Ugh, I'm bitter. Judge is the perfect job for my dad (he really is super fair and very dedicated to the law). Bitter, haha.