The US system of electing judges is criticized for creating conflicts of interest and compromising the independence of the judiciary. The current system, where 39 states hold elections for judges, can lead to judges acting as politicians, seeking campaign funds from lawyers and special interest groups, and making decisions based on popularity rather than justice. This can result in biased rulings, harsher sentences, and a lack of faith in the judicial system. The speaker argues that appointing judges, rather than electing them, may be a better system, despite its own flaws, and suggests that the current system undermines the principle of a fair and impartial judiciary.
Here are the key facts extracted from the text:
1. Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, ordered state judges to ignore a federal ruling that lifted Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage.
2. In the United States, 39 states hold elections for judges.
3. America is virtually alone in holding elections for judges, with the only other country that does it on a similar scale being Bolivia.
4. The practice of electing judges in the United States dates back to the early 1800s.
5. The initial intention behind electing judges was to increase public accountability and transparency in the judicial system.
6. Many judges run unopposed, with some statistics showing that 150 out of 151 incumbent judges in LA County ran unopposed in a particular year.
7. Judges who face challengers often have to run like politicians, which can lead to the use of campaign ads and other tactics that may not be relevant to their qualifications for the job.
8. Judges are sometimes forced to make decisions based on public opinion rather than the law, particularly in election years.
9. Campaigns for judgeships can be expensive, and judges often have to raise money from lawyers, businesses, and special interest groups.
10. Studies have suggested that judges who receive campaign contributions from certain groups are more likely to rule in favor of those groups.
11. The Citizens United decision has allowed PACs and super PACs to become more involved in judicial elections, which can lead to increased outside influence on the judicial system.
12. Some judges have spoken out against the system of electing judges, with one Ohio Supreme Court justice comparing it to being a "hooker down by the bus station".
13. Faith in a strong, independent judiciary is essential for a civilized society, and the current system of electing judges can erode that faith.