Litigation

AJS Study Sheds New Light on Election Vs. Selection

By Charlie Hall

A new survey commissioned by the American Judicature Society shows significant support for nonpartisan judicial appointments in Washington state, over the current election system. Of equal significance, the in-depth survey does much to explain contradictory poll findings on whether Americans prefer to elect judges or have them appointed.

An AJS press release contains a link to a detailed report on the survey, by Washington State University Professors David Brody and Nicholas Lovrich.

As in most surveys, a solid majority prefer electing judges, when the question is asked in a vacuum. According to poll data, 68 percent like nonpartisan elections, the system now used in Washington, with only 9 percent opposed. And 64 percent view contested elections for judges positively, with only 14 percent opposed - again when the question is posed in a vacuum.

What Washington voters don’t like is virtually any of the baggage that comes with their election system as it actually plays out. By large margins, they dislike the impact of special interest adverstising, candidates for the bench having to raise campaign money, and the fact that judges seeking reelection often are uncontested.

Noting that in 2008, only 16 percent of all incumbent judges were opposed, meaning that 84 percent were automatically reelected without challenge, Brody said:

?Essentially, we have an election system with very few elections. In a state with populist traditions, a system of selecting judges which largely prevents citizen input was predictably viewed as being undesirable.?

When voters were given detailed descriptions of two alternatives - nonpartisan elections as they are conducted in Washington, versus a nonpartisan system (more…)

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 23, 2009 (boomark / email).