Judicial Elections and Judicial Independence: The Voter's Perspective
نویسنده
چکیده
The relationship between judicial elections and judicial independence is receiving considerable scrutiny today. This article examines the impact of elections on judicial independence from the perspective of voters, since it is voters’ choices that ultimately determine the electoral fates of incumbent judges. The research on voting in judicial elections helps in understanding the circumstances that make judges vulnerable to defeat and the conditions under which elections may reduce judicial independence. This research also illuminates the effects of different forms of election—partisan, nonpartisan, and retention—on incumbent judges.
منابع مشابه
Judicial Independence and Retention Elections *
Judges face retention elections in over a third of U.S. state courts of last resort and numerous lower courts. According to conventional wisdom, these elections engender judicial independence and decrease democratic accountability. We argue that in the context of modern judicial campaigns, retention elections create pressure for judges to cater to public opinion on “hot-button” issues that are ...
متن کاملAre Appointed Judges Strategic Too?
The conventional wisdom among many legal scholars is that judicial independence can best be achieved with an appointive judiciary; judicial elections turn judges into politicians, threatening judicial autonomy. Yet the original supporters of judicial elections successfully eliminated the appointive systems of many states by arguing that judges who owed their jobs to politicians could never be t...
متن کاملA Few Thoughts on Judicial Supremacy: a Response to Professors Carrington and Cramton
The efforts of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer to provoke examination of the vitality of the American judiciary’s independence have inspired two conferences,1 which in turn have produced many thoughtful papers and much commentary. I have been asked to respond to one such paper offered by Professors Paul Carrington of Duke and Roger Cramton of Cornell.2 These two distinguished sc...
متن کاملKeeping Mud off the Bench: the First Amendment and Regulation of Candidates’ False or Misleading Statements in Judicial Elections
In the last fifty years, perhaps no facet of American constitutional democracy has changed more than campaigns for judicial office. Judicial elections long stood in sharp contrast to elections for executive, legislative, or administrative office. In keeping with the judicial role of impartial adjudicator, judicial candidates historically avoided political controversy and campaigned on “polite p...
متن کاملThe Effect of Judicial Elections on California Tort Law: A Study in Public Choice
This thesis examines the relationship between contested judicial elections and the value of total damages in product liability trials. For years, legal scholars have argued that judicial elections pose a direct threat to a judge's impartiality, but this thesis is one of only a few studies to observe judicial elections' quantitative effects on the application of law. Narrowing the focus of this ...
متن کامل