Bad Ideas For Judicial Elections

8--12--1998

A USA Today editorial (8-10-98) shows that the writer not only misunderstands the original nucleus of "justice" in America, but also misunderstands the current judicial system.

The writer's first mistake is to assume that justice is the result of judicial proceedings in America. While this thankfully happens regularly, the nature of the system - having been corrupted by lawyers and judges as it has over the past two centuries - often leaves justice bringing up the rear of the train, if it makes the journey at all.

The writer does illuminate a serious problem: the financing of judicial elections by lawyers. But the editorial suggests that electing judges is wrong on the face of it. In fact we need more elections - all justices should be elected, including the Supreme Court justices, so that there is some accountability to the citizens by those who are otherwise practically free from restraint (restraint that, unfortunately, a good number have shown they are unwilling to exercise).

The problem is that lawyers should be prohibited by law from contributing to the elections campaigns. One of the editorial's suggestions might be beneficial: public financing of judicial elections. In any event, if Congress would ever come up with a realistic fix for the campaign finance debacle, it could also be applied to election of judges. But in the meantime let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.