Judges Commons^™

This Essay critiques the arguments leveled at judicial elections. For each criticism--which I have discovered through a reasonably thorough review of cases and law review commentary--I assess the degree to which the criticism is valid, and also the degree to which other judicial-selection methods fall prey to the same criticism. I argue that the flaws of judicial elections, though often considerable, are shared in large part by alternative selection systems. Beyond, however, being simply equivalent in malignity to other selection methods, elections have--or, rather, may have, depending on the content of judicial election campaigns--one advantage over other systems that instigated …

The realization that judicial ideology matters to case outcomes may have driven the judicial selection process to become increasingly ideological and partisan, but to some degree it has brought ideology and partisanship to bear on the selection process from the time of the Founding. As the authors note, “Presidents, senators, and

interest groups alike realize that the judges themselves are political.” Judging may in some ways be different from politics, but politicians’ judgments about judging most certainly are not.