Why we shouldn't elect judges

Every so often, usually in response to an unpopular judicial decision, someone suggests that we should elect judges so as to keep them under control. Today's New York Times has a powerful warning against judicial election:

In the fall of 2004, Terrence O'Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before.

In the weeks before the election, Justice O'Donnell's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O'Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories.

Justice O'Donnell's conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Overall, O'Donnell supported his campaign contributors from the bench 91% of the time. The average for the Ohio Supreme Court as a whole was 70%. The conclusion is inescapable: justice is for sale in Ohio.

Unfortunately, its not just Ohio. 39 states of the US elect their judges, and with the cost of campaigns rising, the independence and impartiality of their courts is being progressively compromised.

The purpose of a court is to deliver fair, impartial, and independent justice, based on the law rather than public or private prejudice. Election utterly compromises this goal, and results in judges making decisions with one eye on their campaign. This completely undermines the judicial system, and its a good reason to appoint rather than elect.

[Hat tip: TalkLeft]