# Does it make sense to elect judges? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893 "2005-08-13T20:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/21 "2005-08-16T21:33:41Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Electing judges encourages judges to campaign based on emotional and political ideas rather than on their qualifications as a judge. In this case, as I said in the OP, rather than claiming he got the right answer in cases, he was campaigning based on the idea that he was a good anti-crime advocate. But judges aren’t supposed to be advocates. They are supposed to decide cases based on the facts and the law. Yeah, but all judges are elected. You can be popularly elected, elected by a legislative body, or appointed by some executive fiat, but you’re still being elected by _somebody_, unless you have some way to make appointments automatic. :dubious: If justices can be elected more easily by claiming to be tough on crime, maybe that’s because the state has a serious crime problem, & the judiciary has a lousy record of dealing with it. Why is it any worse to elect enforcers of the law popularly than to elect lawmakers popularly? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/22 "2005-08-16T21:49:40Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, but all judges are elected. You can be popularly elected, elected by a legislative body, or appointed by some executive fiat, but you’re still being elected by _somebody_, unless you have some way to make appointments automatic. :dubious: > > If justices can be elected more easily by claiming to be tough on crime, maybe that’s because the state has a serious crime problem, & the judiciary has a lousy record of dealing with it. Why is it any worse to elect enforcers of the law popularly than to elect lawmakers popularly? Because the whole idea of the judiciary is that they are insulated from temporary passions. What’s more, the measure of a good judge isn’t necessarily that the judge makes the electorate happy. The best judges sometimes have to do things that go against the will of the majority. Did you read the ethics rules I cited earlier. That’d be a start in understanding how judges are supposed to act. OTOH, you are right. As we see in the confirmation battles, having elected officials select judges only moves the debate one layer deeper. Instead of the judges grandstanding about being tough on crime and anti-defendant, the politicians use the selection process to grandstand for their own benefit. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/23 "2005-08-16T21:51:42Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, but all judges are elected. You can be popularly elected, elected by a legislative body, or appointed by some executive fiat, but you’re still being elected by _somebody_, unless you have some way to make appointments automatic. :dubious: > > If justices can be elected more easily by claiming to be tough on crime, maybe that’s because the state has a serious crime problem, & the judiciary has a lousy record of dealing with it. Why is it any worse to elect enforcers of the law popularly than to elect lawmakers popularly? I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I speak as a lawyer who ran for an Ohio local court judgeship and lost. The governor and insiders picking judges isn’t necessarily any better than the electorate picking them. The fact that very few sitting judges are turned out still is attributable to name recognition and inertia more than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/24 "2005-08-16T21:53:33Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I speak as a lawyer who ran for an Ohio local court judgeship and lost. The governor and insiders picking judges isn’t necessarily any better than the electorate picking them. The fact that very few sitting judges are turned out still is attributable to name recognition and inertia more than anything else. Did you run on the “I’ll consistently rule against criminal defendants” ticket? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/25 "2005-08-16T22:09:10Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Did you run on the “I’ll consistently rule against criminal defendants” ticket? 😉 A friend of my Dad’s who did primarily civil work was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. My Dad, a defense attorney, was asking him how he was going to make the transition from doing civil work to judging criminal appeals. His friend shrugged and joked, “the way I see it, once you get the ol’ ‘harmless error’ rule down, everything else just falls into place!” :eek: 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/26 "2005-08-16T23:15:38Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > A friend of my Dad’s who did primarily civil work was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. My Dad, a defense attorney, was asking him how he was going to make the transition from doing civil work to judging criminal appeals. His friend shrugged and joked, “the way I see it, once you get the ol’ ‘harmless error’ rule down, everything else just falls into place!” :eek: 😃 LOL. It seems many judges think that way. A Hawaii Supreme Court Justice once told a story about how his philosophy as a trial judge was to rule in favor of the better lawyer because that lawyer would be defending the decision on appeal. :eek: :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/27 "2005-08-17T01:00:33Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, but all judges are elected. You can be popularly elected, elected by a legislative body, or appointed by some executive fiat, but you’re still being elected by _somebody_, unless you have some way to make appointments automatic. :dubious: A more thoughtful response: 1. You are equivocating here, and not very convincingly. Your own usage gives you away. “You can be elected. . . elected. . . or appointed[.]” :rolleyes: While it is true that there are various ways of selecting or choosing judges, and it is also true that all of them involve some person or group of people making the choice, they are not all popular elections. I doubt anyone, including you, understood the OP to be using the word election in the broad sense you are using it here. A debater’s point at best. 2. Your broader point is valid though. Yes, we have to pick judges somehow, and we certainly don’t want them picking themselves. The question is: which method will be most likely to select the most qualified people for the job. That was my question in the OP, and your answer simply begs that question. 😃 Each methods has its own set of strengths and flaws. **Popular election** Weaknesses include probability that judges who are unskilled, activist, corrupt, or biased will be selected. The general public lacks the resources to evaluate a judge’s skills, tends to focus on issues instead of qualifications, responds to media advertising instead of the candidate’s record, and will vote for judges that are likely to favor the majority’s side in their decisions. Strengths include lower risk that all judges will share the views of the other branches or be drawn only from elite political circles. **Executive appointment** Weaknesses include probability that the executive will appoint judges who are political allies, those who are part of the establishment. Very unlikely that an unknown or member of a competing faction will be appointed or that non-politicians will be appointed. Strengths include speed and ability to select the best candidate (instead of the least controversial one). **Legislative appointment** Weaknesses include the probability that the controlling majority will appoint only its own political allies and that only members of elite political circles will be appointed. Because judges review legislation, it is less likely that judges who have expressed views contrary to the prevailing faction will be appointed. Strengths include greater likelihood that judges will be evaluated based on their judging skills or record as a judge instead of popularity or success of advertising. Mixed appointment schemes try to develop checks and balances in order to insure against some of the weaknesses while pooling strengths. Of course, it’s all politics, so hegemony seems inevitable. Moreover, the pluralistic approach that most mixed schemes entail pretty much guarantee that we won’t get the best judges, but only the most politically acceptable judges. A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee. > [@](#): > > If justices can be elected more easily by claiming to be tough on crime, maybe that’s because the state has a serious crime problem, & the judiciary has a lousy record of dealing with it. Why is it any worse to elect enforcers of the law popularly than to elect lawmakers popularly? Because law enforcement is an executive function. Law application is a judicial function. I’d vote for a sheriff who said he was tough on crime. I’m afraid of a judge who tells me war stories about how he “got in” evidence in order to save the conviction of a rapist. The rules are there to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial. If you change the rules on an ad hoc basis in order to “get” the bad guys, you’ll wind up getting a bunch of innocent guys too. And that sucks. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I speak as a lawyer who ran for an Ohio local court judgeship and lost. The governor and insiders picking judges isn’t necessarily any better than the electorate picking them. The fact that very few sitting judges are turned out still is attributable to name recognition and inertia more than anything else. The hope with appointments is that name recognition is not the basis on which judges get \*into \*office. We hope that those who choose judges look at judicial qualifications instead of tv commercials that depict the judge looking judicial. If they stay in because people recognize their names and they haven’t been involved in a huge public scandal or removed for ethical breaches, half the battle has been won. In case it’s not clear from my posts so far, I’m not a big fan of retention elections either. They lead to the same kinds of problems as electing judges in the first place. I think they are an acceptable compromise, but if I were setting up a system, that wouldn’t be it. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/28 "2005-08-17T01:16:34Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I speak as a lawyer who ran for an Ohio local court judgeship and lost. The governor and insiders picking judges isn’t necessarily any better than the electorate picking them. The fact that very few sitting judges are turned out still is attributable to name recognition and inertia more than anything else. Seriously, though. What was your pitch? How did you attempt to distinguish yourself from the other candidates. When I lived in Vegas, a guy ran for sheriff with the lone slogan: “He’s qualified!” I think that my losing judicial campaign would be based on the same premise–vote for \*\*Gfactor \*\*, he doesn’t suck any more than the other candidates, and he’s stopped having (non-consensual) sex with animals (except for the occasional goat–but that’s part of an SDMB ritual). What? Now there’s a goat-felching litmus test? I’m shocked :eek: I bet it’s because I’m a ;j This is a high-tech lynching. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/29 "2005-08-17T01:45:27Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > The hope with appointments is that name recognition is not the basis on which judges get \*into \*office. We hope that those who choose judges look at judicial qualifications instead of tv commercials that depict the judge looking judicial. If they stay in because people recognize their names and they haven’t been involved in a huge public scandal or removed for ethical breaches, half the battle has been won. In case it’s not clear from my posts so far, I’m not a big fan of retention elections either. They lead to the same kinds of problems as electing judges in the first place. I think they are an acceptable compromise, but if I were setting up a system, that wouldn’t be it. But it is impossible to remove politics from the appointment of judges. In my opinion, so impossible that it’s not even worth trying. The Missouri Plan (which I recognize from **Spavined Gelding** ’s post that Colorado’s system is a version of) seems best to me. You remove partisan politics as much as is possible; the mixture of lawyers and non-lawyers on the commissions removes insider bias as much as is possible; the retention vote allows the voters to remove the jackass who imposes maximum fines for being drunk in public in Leadville on a Saturday night. It seems to me that the Plan is simply a system of compromises. Best we can do, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/30 "2005-08-17T02:17:29Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > But it is impossible to remove politics from the appointment of judges. In my opinion, so impossible that it’s not even worth trying. The Missouri Plan (which I recognize from **Spavined Gelding** ’s post that Colorado’s system is a version of) seems best to me. You remove partisan politics as much as is possible; the mixture of lawyers and non-lawyers on the commissions removes insider bias as much as is possible; the retention vote allows the voters to remove the jackass who imposes maximum fines for being drunk in public in Leadville on a Saturday night. It seems to me that the Plan is simply a system of compromises. Best we can do, I think. It comes pretty close. That’s why I said it was an acceptable compromise. Yeah, it’s pretty tough to come up with a perfect system. Here is how they do it in Hawaii: > [@](#): > > APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES > > Section 3. The governor, with the consent of the senate, shall fill a vacancy in the office of the chief justice, supreme court, intermediate appellate court and circuit courts, by appointing a person from a list of not less than four, and not more than six, nominees for the vacancy, presented to the governor by the judicial selection commission > > If the governor fails to make any appointment within thirty days of presentation, or within ten days of the senate’s rejection of any previous appointment, the appointment shall be made by the judicial selection commission from the list with the consent of the senate. If the senate fails to reject any appointment within thirty days thereof, it shall be deemed to have given its consent to such appointment. If the senate shall reject any appointment, the governor shall make another appointment from the list within ten days thereof. The same appointment and consent procedure shall be followed until a valid appointment has been made, or failing this, the commission shall make the appointment from the list, without senate consent > > The chief justice, with the consent of the senate, shall fill a vacancy in the district courts by appointing a person from a list of not less than six nominees for the vacancy presented by the judicial commission. If the chief justice fails to make the appointment within thirty days of presentation, or within ten days of the senate’s rejection of any previous appointment, the appointment shall be made by the judicial selection commission from the list with the consent of the senate. The senate must hold a public hearing and vote on each appointment within thirty days of any appointment. If the senate fails to do so, the nomination shall be returned to the commission and the commission shall make the appointment from the list without senate consent. The chief justice shall appoint per diem district court judges as provided by law. > > QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT > > Justices and judges shall be residents and citizens of the State and of the United States, and licensed to practice law by the supreme court. A justice of the supreme court, a judge of the intermediate appellate court and a judge of the circuit court shall have been so licensed for a period of not less than ten years preceding nomination. A judge of the district court shall have been so licensed for a period of not less than five years preceding nomination > > No justice or judge shall, during the term of office, engage in the practice of law, or run for or hold any other office or position of profit under the United States, the State or its political subdivisions. > > TENURE; COMPENSATION; RETIREMENT > > The term of office of justices and judges of the supreme court, intermediate appellate court and circuit courts shall be ten years. Judges of district courts shall hold office for the periods as provided by law. At least six months prior to the expiration of a justice’s or judge’s term of office, every justice and judge shall petition the judicial selection commission to be retained in office or shall inform the commission of an intention to retire. If the judicial selection commission determines that the justice or judge should be retained in office, the commission shall renew the term of office of such justice or judge for the period provided by this section or by law > > There shall be a salary commission to review and recommend salaries for justices and judges of all state courts. Justices and judges shall have salaries as provided by law. Their compensation shall not be decreased during their respective terms of office, unless by general law applying to all salaried officers of the State. They shall be retired upon attaining the age of seventy years. They shall be included in any retirement law of the State. [Am Const Con 1968 and election Nov 5, 1968; ren and am Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978; am SB 2182 (1994) and SB 2294 (1994) and election Nov 8, 1994] > > JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMISSION > > Section 4. There shall be a judicial selection commission that shall consist of nine members. The governor shall appoint two members to the commission. No more than one of the two members shall be a licensed attorney. The president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives shall each respectively appoint two members to the commission. The chief justice of the supreme court shall appoint one member to the commission. Members in good standing of the bar of the State shall elect two of their number to the commission in an election conducted by the supreme court or its delegate. No more than four members of the commission shall be licensed attorneys. At all times, at least one member of the commission shall be a resident of a county other than the City and County of Honolulu > > The commission shall be selected and shall operate in a wholly nonpartisan manner. After the initial formation of the commission, elections and appointments to the commission shall be for staggered terms of six years each. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no member of the commission shall serve for more than six years on the commission > > Each member of the judicial selection commission shall be a resident of the State and a citizen of the United States. No member shall run for or hold any other elected office under the United States, the State or its political subdivisions. No member shall take an active part in political management or in political campaigns. No member shall be eligible for appointment to the judicial office of the State so long as the person is a member of the judicial commission and for a period of three years thereafter > > No act of the judicial selection commission shall be valid except by concurrence of the majority of its voting members > > The judicial selection commission shall select one of its members to serve as chairperson. The commission shall adopt rules which shall have the force and effect of law. The deliberations of the commission shall be confidential > > The legislature shall provide for the staff and operating expenses of the judicial selection commission in a separate budget. No member of the judicial selection commission shall receive any compensation for commission services, but shall be allowed necessary expenses for travel, board and lodging incurred in the performance of commission duties > > The judicial selection commission shall be attached to the judiciary branch of the state government for purposes of administration. Though this system appears to resolve many of the problems we are talking about, in my experience, it resolves few of them. The judiciary is insulated from popular whim in a way that it isn’t in states with elections, the difference is difficult to notice in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/31 "2005-08-17T02:44:42Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Though this system appears to resolve many of the problems we are talking about, in my experience, it resolves few of them. The judiciary is insulated from popular whim in a way that it isn’t in states with elections, the difference is difficult to notice in practice. The obvious problem there is that the same commission that nominates the judges is also the commission that chooses whether to retain them. I guess I don’t see the same problem with retention votes that you do. Perhaps it’s just the history of the way things have gone in Colorado since I moved here (1991); judges haven’t been ejected from office due to politics. As a liberal in a conservative state, I think I would have noticed. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/32 "2005-08-17T02:54:01Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > The obvious problem there is that the same commission that nominates the judges is also the commission that chooses whether to retain them. > > I guess I don’t see the same problem with retention votes that you do. Perhaps it’s just the history of the way things have gone in Colorado since I moved here (1991); judges haven’t been ejected from office due to politics. As a liberal in a conservative state, I think I would have noticed. California has a similar system, and a while back, several justices were removed because of politics. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose\_Bird](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird). It is rare, but I think the stark fist of removal must be on the mind of every Justice when deciding politically charged cases. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/33 "2005-08-17T03:08:08Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > California has a similar system, and a while back, several justices were removed because of politics. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose\_Bird](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bird). It is rare, but I think the stark fist of removal must be on the mind of every Justice when deciding politically charged cases. Bird and the other two justices removed did not allow the “stark fist of removal” to affect their votes. They still voted against the death penalty. I would hope that if I were ever appointed a judge, I would have the same courage of my convictions. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/34 "2005-08-17T03:19:14Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Bird and the other two justices removed did not allow the “stark fist of removal” to affect their votes. They still voted against the death penalty. I meant since then. 😉 > [@](#): > > I would hope that if I were ever appointed a judge, I would have the same courage of my convictions. I hope so too. But that’s my hope. I notice that Bird and crew’s replacements followed the will of the people, or had different convictions. And, BTW, my point was simply that while “judges haven’t been ejected from office due to politics,” in Colorado, they have been elsewhere. Also, it wasn’t just about the death penalty–it was about :eek: big business not liking Bird’s opinions about state tort law. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/35 "2005-08-17T03:36:24Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I hope so too. But that’s my hope. I notice that Bird and crew’s replacements followed the will of the people, or had different convictions. Different convictions, I should think, as they were appointed by a conservative governor. > [@](#): > > And, BTW, my point was simply that while “judges haven’t been ejected from office due to politics,” in Colorado, they have been elsewhere. > > Also, it wasn’t just about the death penalty–it was about :eek: big business not liking Bird’s opinions about state tort law. I’m fairly convinced that Bird was probably incompentent. It was the other judges’ bad luck to be caught up in the turmoil. I’ll admit, you make a point. I do, however, believe that the occasional judge being caught up in the turmoil is worth the value of a retention vote. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/36 "2005-08-17T03:44:15Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Different convictions, I should think, as they were appointed by a conservative governor. > I’m fairly convinced that Bird was probably incompentent. It was the other judges’ bad luck to be caught up in the turmoil. > > I’ll admit, you make a point. I do, however, believe that the occasional judge being caught up in the turmoil is worth the value of a retention vote. And I can live with the retention vote. Wanna get some coffee now? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/37 "2005-08-17T03:50:53Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > And I can live with the retention vote. Wanna get some coffee now? 😃 No, thanks. I’ll be getting up at four - I think I should avoid caffeine. Well, if the voters approve. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/38 "2005-08-17T03:58:14Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > No, thanks. I’ll be getting up at four - I think I should avoid caffeine. Well, if the voters approve. Ok. Fine. Somebody bring in the goat. It’s going to be a long night. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/39 "2005-08-17T14:05:22Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Did you run on the “I’ll consistently rule against criminal defendants” ticket? 😉 That’s classified info I’m saving that info for my tell all book, “How NOT to run a local political campaign.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2005, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893/40 "2005-08-18T23:35:51Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, but all judges are elected. You can be popularly elected, elected by a legislative body, or appointed by some executive fiat, but you’re still being elected by _somebody_, unless you have some way to make appointments automatic. :dubious: I’ve one. Competitive examination. That’s how the magistrates are selected at the first place in France. People with the best results at the exam enter the school. People with the best grades during school have the first pick at the available jobs, if I’m not mistaken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-it-make-sense-to-elect-judges/316893.md?page=3)