Judges: By Election or Appointment?

It’s a simple question. Should Supreme Court judges, or any other high-position judge, be elected or appointed? In Wisconsin, voters will choose (on April 7) a new state Supreme Court justice in an election that will either maintain or expand the court’s liberal majority. Even if one supports election of judges, I have an additional issue with this election.

Why is the election for something as important as a judge, taking place during a primary, not the general election? Not nearly as many people show up for primary elections as they do for general elections. Depending on one’s state of residency and party rules, independents can’t even vote in a primary except for special ballot issues. Judges are the final voice in how our country is run and are entrusted to keep legislators from abusing our rights. Therefore, as many people as possible should be participating.

Appeals Court judges, Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar, are running to replace retiring Justice, Rebecca Bradley. Taylor is a former Democratic state representative with endorsements from the court’s four existing liberal justices. Lazar was assistant state Attorney General under former Governor, Scott Walker. Her endorsement includes conservative Justice, Annette Ziegler, who announced she will not seek a third term in 2027. Endorsements by existing judges sounds like party politics to me, but what government employee endorsement doesn’t?

Personally, I oppose the election of judges. A job of such importance shouldn’t be decided by a popularity contest or a life-long incumbent system. Need proof? Look at America’s largest old-folks home… Congress! Fortunately, Wisconsin bans judges past the age of 70, something that arguably needs to be done for all legislators and judges, and as the last five-plus years has proven, president.

Additionally, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates must be a licensed lawyer for the five years leading up to the election. At least that keeps celebrities from getting elected.

I much prefer my judges, at least at the federal and state level, to be appointed by the legislature. Yes, that too, has its faults, especially in “one-party” legislatures. Ideally, legislatures would be balanced and appointments would need approval with more than a simple majority. That way, at least in theory, we’d get judges whose interpretation of their respective Constitutions would satisfy or anger both sides of the political spectrum equally.

My state of South Dakota is somewhat unique, or so I think without looking at every state’s laws. Our Supreme Court justices are initially appointed. After that, they are subject to retention votes by the public (first time after three years, then every eight years afterward). Even that’s not ideal as the legislature is “one-party” and the voting public is also very conservative. However, that’s balanced out somewhat in the fact that each judge has to come from a different region of the state.

Elections and appointments both have their faults. Neither is perfect. America is not a true democracy as to avoid mob rule; it’s a democratic Republic. We supposedly trust our elected leaders to make educated decisions, which hopefully... are better than popularity contest results.

Source used: Associated Press