Trans Fatty Acids
22-01-2008, 20:52
So I normally buy into the argument that more democracy-->more transparency-->better government. But I'm looking over the ballot for the upcoming primary elections and besides the national, state, & county races, there are 29, count 'em, TWENTY-NINE judgeships being contested on the ballot. On the Democratic Party primary ballot, there are a total of NINETY-THREE contenders for those positions. (There's some obvious party-level wrangling in how the candidates are divided up for the positions -- some have party support and are thus running unopposed in the primary, as opposed to, for example, the race for "Additional Judgeship A" on the 15th Subcircuit, which has nine candidates vying for a spot on the general ballot.)
This is no way to pick effective judges. There's no mainstream media coverage of the candidates, and the blogosphere has spotty-at-best coverage. There's no way the average Joe or Jane has the time or inclination to poke around and gather information on ninety-three different candidates, if that information is even freely available. And it's not like these Judgeships aren't important -- ask that same Joe or Jane if they have an opinion on judicial activism, or tort reform, or privacy issues, or police torture, or corruption, and I'll bet you more often than not that they have. The judicial branch has just as important a say on those issues as the executive & legislative, but the voters have no opportunity to make the connection between those issues and, for example, whether they should pick Michael Halloran, Thomas Mulroy, Pamela Loza, or Thomas Flannigan for the Cook County 12th Subcircuit. (OK, to be the Democratic nominee for the 12th Subcircuit, but nobody votes Republican in Cook County anyway, so the Dem nominee is almost always the winner of the general.)
But on the other hand, I want judges to have some sort of public accountability. Handing the judge-selection process over to a committee wouldn't necessarily be any better. Illinois is full of supposed blue-ribbon committees that are basically a source of sinecures and don't do anything useful.
So what do y'all think? Are you able to elect your judges? If not, do you wish you could, or do you think your system works just fine? Would you favor a different style of election (maybe a Dutch Auction?)
This is no way to pick effective judges. There's no mainstream media coverage of the candidates, and the blogosphere has spotty-at-best coverage. There's no way the average Joe or Jane has the time or inclination to poke around and gather information on ninety-three different candidates, if that information is even freely available. And it's not like these Judgeships aren't important -- ask that same Joe or Jane if they have an opinion on judicial activism, or tort reform, or privacy issues, or police torture, or corruption, and I'll bet you more often than not that they have. The judicial branch has just as important a say on those issues as the executive & legislative, but the voters have no opportunity to make the connection between those issues and, for example, whether they should pick Michael Halloran, Thomas Mulroy, Pamela Loza, or Thomas Flannigan for the Cook County 12th Subcircuit. (OK, to be the Democratic nominee for the 12th Subcircuit, but nobody votes Republican in Cook County anyway, so the Dem nominee is almost always the winner of the general.)
But on the other hand, I want judges to have some sort of public accountability. Handing the judge-selection process over to a committee wouldn't necessarily be any better. Illinois is full of supposed blue-ribbon committees that are basically a source of sinecures and don't do anything useful.
So what do y'all think? Are you able to elect your judges? If not, do you wish you could, or do you think your system works just fine? Would you favor a different style of election (maybe a Dutch Auction?)