On Voting
Dwayne has called for us to blog about voting today. It was a great choice for me since I spent the day attending a continuing legal education (CLE) class about the judiciary and the best method for choosing judges (election, retention, appointment or merit selection). It was the liveliest CLE I have ever attended.
Those that put on the class (AJS) have an unhidden agenda: to promote the use of merit selection. Many judges were in attendence and they each had a very clear opinion on the subject. Some had no clear remedy for their problems, but complained that there were not enough minorities on the bench. The AJS executive president started rattling off statistics about the make-up of our courts and people started yelling out corrections to him! For instance, he stated that we had no native Americans on the bench, and people started naming names. One man said, "Most native Oklahomans have Indian blood, but they just don't identify themselves that way." Then the AJS guy said we had one African American judge, and the African American judge sitting next to him held up three fingers and said, "We have three." Yet another man raised his hand and said, "You should verify your facts before you state them so boldly. They are clearly WRONG." The AJS guy turned bright red and I can assure you some underling back home has had a phone call by now. Never send your boss out with the wrong statistics!!
Anyway, the topic often turned to the matter of knowledge about judges and judicial campaigns. Judge Niles Jackson cited a case where another judge had said during his election campaign that he didn't like homosexuals. When an attorney had a case involving homosexual pedophilia, the attorney had to decide whether to allow the case to go to trial in front of the judge. Judge Jackson was arguing that it would be better if the judge had not stated his views before he got on the bench, but my thought was that it was better to know the judges 'philosophical' leanings before taking a case before him. Better to settle the case than get blown out of the water, in my opinion. I actually agree that a wise judge keeps his opinions to himself, but if someone wants to let his mouth run, why not let him?
I know that issue is not a simple one. The judiciary was not created to be a body politic. I certainly understand the wisdom of having a branch of government that is not subject to the whims of the people. For that reason, I do see some benefit to the merit selection system. In that system, those who wish to be judges submit themselves to a judicial selection committee. The committee reviews the person's qualifications, checks references and performs a background check. This does impart some measure of safety in the process, but I don't believe it would solve the diversity problem or even negate partisan issues. After all, the members of the selection committee have political leanings just like all the rest of us. I also believe the American people have an understanding of the function of the judiciary and are able to vote for judges they believe do their best to uphold the laws.
The question remains, though, how to educate the public about the judges without turning the election or retention process into a partisan affair. One group in Oklahoma sent questionairres to attorneys asking questions about judges. If they had argued a case before a judge, they were asked to rate his/her professionalism, organization, knowledge and understanding of the law and, among other things, whether s/he respected women and minorities. Not suprisingly, all the judges got extremely high scores. Frankly, I don't see that as valuable information. (I'd rather poll the secretaries and law clerks.)
When you go to the polls, do you know anything about the judges? Do you think you should? What would you like to know?
Dwayne has called for us to blog about voting today. It was a great choice for me since I spent the day attending a continuing legal education (CLE) class about the judiciary and the best method for choosing judges (election, retention, appointment or merit selection). It was the liveliest CLE I have ever attended.
Those that put on the class (AJS) have an unhidden agenda: to promote the use of merit selection. Many judges were in attendence and they each had a very clear opinion on the subject. Some had no clear remedy for their problems, but complained that there were not enough minorities on the bench. The AJS executive president started rattling off statistics about the make-up of our courts and people started yelling out corrections to him! For instance, he stated that we had no native Americans on the bench, and people started naming names. One man said, "Most native Oklahomans have Indian blood, but they just don't identify themselves that way." Then the AJS guy said we had one African American judge, and the African American judge sitting next to him held up three fingers and said, "We have three." Yet another man raised his hand and said, "You should verify your facts before you state them so boldly. They are clearly WRONG." The AJS guy turned bright red and I can assure you some underling back home has had a phone call by now. Never send your boss out with the wrong statistics!!
Anyway, the topic often turned to the matter of knowledge about judges and judicial campaigns. Judge Niles Jackson cited a case where another judge had said during his election campaign that he didn't like homosexuals. When an attorney had a case involving homosexual pedophilia, the attorney had to decide whether to allow the case to go to trial in front of the judge. Judge Jackson was arguing that it would be better if the judge had not stated his views before he got on the bench, but my thought was that it was better to know the judges 'philosophical' leanings before taking a case before him. Better to settle the case than get blown out of the water, in my opinion. I actually agree that a wise judge keeps his opinions to himself, but if someone wants to let his mouth run, why not let him?
I know that issue is not a simple one. The judiciary was not created to be a body politic. I certainly understand the wisdom of having a branch of government that is not subject to the whims of the people. For that reason, I do see some benefit to the merit selection system. In that system, those who wish to be judges submit themselves to a judicial selection committee. The committee reviews the person's qualifications, checks references and performs a background check. This does impart some measure of safety in the process, but I don't believe it would solve the diversity problem or even negate partisan issues. After all, the members of the selection committee have political leanings just like all the rest of us. I also believe the American people have an understanding of the function of the judiciary and are able to vote for judges they believe do their best to uphold the laws.
The question remains, though, how to educate the public about the judges without turning the election or retention process into a partisan affair. One group in Oklahoma sent questionairres to attorneys asking questions about judges. If they had argued a case before a judge, they were asked to rate his/her professionalism, organization, knowledge and understanding of the law and, among other things, whether s/he respected women and minorities. Not suprisingly, all the judges got extremely high scores. Frankly, I don't see that as valuable information. (I'd rather poll the secretaries and law clerks.)
When you go to the polls, do you know anything about the judges? Do you think you should? What would you like to know?
posted by Jan at 5:28 PM
1 Comments:
I admitted last year that if I'd ever heard of a judge, I voted not to retain, on the dubious basis that if he's gotten into the news, something terribly dreadful must have happened.
Not scientific, but neither is flipping a quarter.
Post a Comment
<< Home