# Party-Affiliated Judges. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-affiliated-judges/203833 "2003-09-25T20:58:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-affiliated-judges/203833/1 "2003-09-25T20:58:42Z")
First off, I’m going to speak on the experiences I’ve had in voting for judges here in Minnesota. Right now when I hit the voting booth, I have to do quite a bit of research on the judicial candidates (far more than any other office). Looking for information in the papers, hand-outs by political parties who will just give a name as to whom to vote for, and the League of Women Voters. I’ve asked people I know that vote how they vote for judges, a majority say that they either vote for the encumbant (which is listed on the ballot) or for whomever their party tells them to. We have strict standards here that make the flow information very difficult to be a knowledgeable voter and it has subsequented in a law-suit: [Republican Party of Minnesota vs Kelly](http://www.aclj.org/ussc/judconf/020325brief.asp) > [@](#): > > Minnesota’s “highly paternalistic approach,” Eu, 489 U.S. at 223 (internal quotation marks omitted), prohibiting candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues, “is generally suspect,” 489 U.S. at 223-24 (citing cases), and patently anti-democratic. Minnesota acts as a censor, deciding what information is appropriate for a voter to consider in selecting judicial candidates. There is one fact, however, that the State of Minnesota treats as essential information for every voter in a judicial election, namely the status of incumbent candidates as such. (7) The identification of incumbent status is, purportedly, provided only in judicial elections, id. Perhaps the State of Minnesota has discovered a fact about incumbency and voters that can be made to speak volumes with that one word. It seems more likely that, while silencing the discussion of views and opinions on disputed legal and political issues, the State is commending experience on the job as the important consideration for voters. Minnesota’s canon specifically says the[following](http://www.state.mn.us/ebranch/judstnds/canon2.html) : > [@](#): > > A Judge or Judicial Candidate Shall Refrain From Political Activity Inappropriate to Judicial Office > A. In General. > Each justice of the supreme court and each court of appeals and district court judge is deemed to hold a separate nonpartisan office, MS 204B.06 Subd 6. > (1) Except as authorized in Section 5B(1), a judge or a candidate for election to judicial office shall not: > (a) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization; identify themselves as members of a political organization, except as necessary to vote in an election; > (b) publicly endorse or, except for the judge or candidate’s opponent, publicly oppose another candidate for public office; > © make speeches on behalf of a political organization; > (d) attend political gatherings; or seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization; or > (e) solicit funds for or pay an assessment to or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or purchase tickets for political party dinners or other functions. I’m wondering why not allow judges say their opinions and affiliate themselves with a party if they so choose. Let them run an honest campaign on what issues they stand for, how they’ve sentenced in the past, and comment on their opponents. Yes, judges are supposed to be impartial and be able to interpret the law as is written but mention the name Scalia as a member of the SCOTUS and a party affiliation, even though not formal, comes to my mind. The [DNC](http://www.democrats.org/scotus/petition.html?s=moveon) has come out and created a petition on their website addressing the “issue” of President Bush appointing judges that would follow right wing leanings (or extremist, ultra-conservative as they so ineloquently say it). > [@](#): > > Dear Democratic Leaders: > The United States Supreme Court is the backbone that upholds American values. > These cherished American values are at risk if one or more Supreme Court Justices retire this summer. Civil rights, a woman’s right to choose, environmental protections, public education, workers’ rights, and much more are threatened by a right-wing court. > President Bush has already built a record of nominating extremist, ultra-conservative judges to the federal bench. > I stand with and support Democratic leaders in the fight to oppose ultra-conservative nominees to the nation’s highest court. [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/transcripts/halmilton.scotus.fl.07.05/) had an interview with Marci Hamilton back in July of 2000 where she claims that the justices are shielded from political pressure and then thusly can make their opinions free of having to follow the party (and incidentally, this negates what [democrats.org](http://democrats.org) say up above). > [@](#): > > Marci Hamilton: The court is more unified than not. They certainly are not ruling on party lines. But each justice has a particular bent that leads them to decide issues in either a more conservative or more liberal fashion. Each of the justices was chosen based on his or her viewpoint. But justices frequently change their viewpoint once they get to the court. For example, George Bush’s choice of David Souter was intended to be a conservative choice, but he has become one of the stalwarts in the liberal wing of the court. But you need to remember the justices are shielded from political pressure. They have the latitude to make up their own mind. So the questions are: 1)Why not let judges running for public elections explain their belief systems and align themselves with a party if they see fit? 2)Since the simple announcement of belong to party doesn’t make a Senator vote along party lines, why would it make a judge do the same? 3)Is it keeping the voters ignorant not knowing a judge’s party leanings (since they can’t officially join the party)? ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-affiliated-judges/203833/2 "2003-09-25T22:43:03Z")
As a non-American, I honestly don’t understand the idea that judges: 1. are running for elections at all 2. have to be affiliated with a party if they run for election (where they do that) A judge is supposed to be impartial. Whatever personal beliefs a judge holds should be suppressed when on the bench, right? I mean, what’s the point in “campaigning on what issues they stand for” if they are supposed to be impartial? IMO this practice is just one part of the eternal struggle in two-party America, each side vigorously trying to get the final upper hand on the other. I’m glad we don’t have this fight over here. The only time I read about new judges in the media is when a seat on the supreme court is to be filled, and even then the media just mention those who appear to be qualified (down on page 21), nothing about who they are or what beliefs they have. I remember vividly a US district judge running for election some years ago who included information in his campaign material about how many more people he had sentenced to death than his opponents. I don’t think I’m even qualified to answer your questions, but if I may I would say: 1. Yes, 2. I agree, 3. No