Litigation

JAS Issues Guide for Retention Election Voters

By Charlie Hall

With an unusual number of states facing contested retention elections, Justice at Stake has issued a new background paper encouraging voters to look at a judges’ entire record, while relying on multiple sources of information, and not to focus excessively on one decision.

In a release issued Wednesday, Justice at Stake said:

• ?Our system of justice depends on courts that are impartial, even when they handle controversial cases or face political attacks.”
• “Ousting judges over a single decision could force courts to ignore constitutional rights in the face of political pressure.?

Justice at Stake is a nonpartisan group that works to keep courts fair, impartial and free from political or special-interest influence.

As noted in a Sept. 23 release, 37 high-court justices are seeking to win new terms in retention elections–a one-candidate ballot in which voters choose “yes” or “no” on whether to retain a judge on the bench. One or more justices are being opposed in Colorado, Florida Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas. In Illinois and Iowa, opposition groups are mounting well-funded campaigns.

?This year, more than most, voters may be making a close call on whether to keep a judge in office, and there?s a real information vacuum on what factors they should consider,? said Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director. ?This guide is tailored to fill that gap, by answering questions that voters in retention elections may have.?

When is it appropriate to vote deny a judge another term in office? The guide answers the question this way:

?Retention elections are intended to be an option for voters to remove a judge in the rare instance that he or she is unfit for office. For example, removal may be warranted if a judge has defied the rule of law by taking bribes or by committing other crimes, or if he or she exhibits general incompetence or lacks the temperament or character to hear and decide cases fairly and impartially.?

“Voters should base their assessment on judges? entire records, not a single decision. Voters should have confidence that judges are fair and impartial, that they have appropriate character, capabilities and credentials, and that they will uphold the law.”

The full guide is available by clicking here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on October 15, 2010 (boomark / email).