Electing Judges

[ShadowHM]

Hi

I read today an article in the New York Times that discussed some serious problems with elected justices of the peace and the ways in which they can and do behave in settling criminal cases.

The article is here for those who are registered (or are willing to register) with the NYT.

This got me wondering:

If I understand my history, the practice of electing judges in the U.S. of A. arose from a general anathema of the cronyism that marked British rule and a desire for the people to make their own choices as to who would best represent them. It may also have reflected a lack of actual legal training among the population in an expanding society, to boot. But I am wondering if that is a useful thing in today's world.

Canada certainly had the same starting position, wherein judges were selected by the ruling elite and were doubtless chosen for their 'attitude' as much as, if not more than, their legal expertise. Today, that has evolved into a process wherein applicants for the job must pass a variety of hurdles and then be short-listed by a judicial appointments advisory committee before they can be appointed by the Attorney General. In other words, there is a process that ensures that judges do have competence in the law before they can hear criminal cases, something that the general electorate is not qualified to assess.

South of the border, has the process evolved at all? Is this a case where the passage of time and a more complex world has made the process an anachronism? Or am I missing some elements of the equation?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Or am I missing some elements of the equation?

Federal judges are appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate. Sometimes this works better, sometimes worse, mostly depending on whether the president and the majority of the Senate are of the same party.

The part you are missing is that judges at lower levels (State, County, and Municipal) are selected according to the laws of the individual jurisdictions. Clearly, New York State has some carry overs whose mentality (if I may use that word loosely) predate Magna Carta. However, the requirements do seem to vary quite a bit from state to state. I Googled requirements "municipal judge" and found a fair amount of information. At least some states require a municipal court judge to either be a member of the bar or to take (and sometimes even pass;)) a course.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

South of the border, has the process evolved at all? Is this a case where the passage of time and a more complex world has made the process an anachronism? Or am I missing some elements of the equation?

I'd say that failure get's you tossed out if you mess up, or voted out if you are very outrageous in any way. Many groups are pretty saavy about judges, like say the "right to life" groups. There is always a flurry among my religious right friends informing everyone they know who are the "good" judges and who are the "bad" judges. It is very complicated since the judges cannot campaign, be aligned with a party, or speak on how they would be on the bench. It would be nice actually, if there was an easier way to be better informed about their judicial qualifications and rulings.