TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

It's Better To Appoint, Not Elect, Judges

ADVERTISEMENT

JOSEPH H. BROWN

The Tampa Tribune

Published: August 17, 2008

For those who haven't heard, there's a primary election on Aug. 26. Many of the candidates on the ballot will be running for circuit court judge.

A few of the local judicial races have turned nasty, with supporters of some candidates making accusations that opponents have political agendas, even though the office is nonpartisan. The canons of judicial ethics control what candidates can say, especially about political affiliations or expressing their views on any issues that might come before the court. Having interviewed dozens of judicial candidates over the years, I can tell you that it's very frustrating.

This may help explain why the Founding Fathers decided to appoint rather than elect federal judges. While that system is far from perfect, it beats the guessing games voters are faced with locally, where candidates are prohibited from saying much more than "hi" in their campaigns.

That's why I'd like to see all judges appointed rather than elected.

Candidates Are A Mystery

Defenders of the current system proclaim that it's democracy in action. But how much do voters know about the candidates?

From my experience, most voters, even those who are well-informed on political issues, know next to nothing about the vast majority of judicial candidates. So what is a conscientious voter to do? Many will go with a gender preference, a name they like or the design of a yard sign, which is no way to choose those who will sit on our circuit court benches.

Currently, 39 states elect judges. In some states the races are broken down to small voting districts under the guise that voters will better know the candidates - as if judicial competence can be found equally dispersed throughout every precinct and zip code.

Either way, we end up with messy races like some of those here in the 13th Judicial Circuit, where questions of political ideologies and questionable campaign contributions still enter into the fray.
Appointees Do Quite Well

A few years ago I had someone down at the courthouse send me a list of all the sitting judges and to indicate next to their name whether they were appointed or elected. Turns out almost half had been appointed to vacancies on the bench, and I don't believe justice or democracy suffered in the least.

When a judicial vacancy occurs, attorneys are invited to apply. A nonpartisan committee narrows the applicants down, and then they are then sent to the governor for appointment. I don't see any reason why that can't work for all the seats.

A committee of legal experts can make a better determination of the qualities that should commend one to becoming a judge: legal knowledge, experience trying cases, fairness and integrity. Most voters can't.

True, appointing judges would make my job easier, but that's not the point. What's bad about the current system is that come Aug. 26 thousands of voters will have little understanding of most candidates' qualifications to sit on the bench, and that does nothing to enhance justice or our democracy.

Joseph H. Brown is a Tribune editorial writer.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT