Hacker News Reader

Comment by pc86 | Hacker News Reader

The fact that we're electing judges at all is insane. Elections are by definition partisan things, even when you don't list party. I've lived in states with "non-partisan" judge elections, and anyone remotely connected to a political party knows who is what and just votes that way. Yeah it prevents someone from just pulling a straight-ticket lever in the booth without doing any research but that's about it.

Your average voter has absolutely no business deciding the quality of someone's legal education, scholarship, etc. Hell one state I lived in most of the "judges" handling minor offenses like traffic tickets and small claims court had never been to law school, never served in any criminal justice role, they just ran for the seat and got it. It's a joke.

Appointing judges has its own host of problems but at least then you'll get people who are on the surface qualified to read, understand, and interpret the law.

View on HN

No disagreement here about the failings of elected judges, but if partisanship is something to be avoided, then having appointed judges can often be just as bad. The politician doing the appointments will surely pick judges that align with their party's ideals.

In the best case, when the executive and the legislature are in opposition—and appointments must clear both branches—then you have opposing forces that hopefully weed out the most partisan of judges.

My proposal is to have candidate judges throw their name on a list. Whenever a spot needs filling, then each of 3 committees makes their selections from that list. Those 3 committees would be (1) current judges, (2) prosecutors, and (3) defense attorneys.

Only if a majority of each group blesses a candidate, would that candidate be eligible for appointment by the governor.

Electing judges does not preclude having legal requirements for running or holding the position. I’d wager more states have requirements like “must have practiced law in state x for y years” than not. Mine does.

Going into this judge’s background, she was originally appointed a Family Master before becoming a judge, so evidently the wisdom of appointments did not save people from her either.

Edit: are we sure this is an elected position in WV? I am looking at the county elections and don’t see judges listed on the results or ballot. Her replacement was appointed by the governor with no mention of it being interim u til an election.

Edit2: they are indeed elected, with eight year terms, which is why I did not see it. But the judge in question was again someone previously appointed to a family master position and then elected - and family master would definitely be prior qualification. Additionally these judges in WV must be a member on good standing with the bar and have a minimum of five years practicing law in WV.

In most states there is no requirement for elected judges to have any experience in law

Do you have a source for that? I took the totally unscientific method of sampling every southern border-ish state I could think of: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Of those 10, 9 required 5-10 years experience as an attorney in that state. Only Arizona did not have that requirement. I couldn’t find a comprehensive list.

Appointed judges are just another form of patronage. The process is no less partisan than an election, and arguably more so because of the small coalition that actually needs to be onboard.

Still, an elected official with a track record of appointing manifestly unqualified judges will attract more news attention than a manifestly unqualified judge winning an election.

I would argue the ability to elect judges by constitutes is the only means to work around gerrymandering. The people are then allowed to override the legislative branch.

Wait until you hear about places electing a coroner who may or may not be any sort of medical professional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com