Litigation

Judge Faces Voters After Decision, and Tragedy

By Peter Hardin

In southern California, a judge made what seemed like a routine ruling in a domestic dispute involving separated parents and their baby, letting the father keep partial custody of his son–over the warnings of the mother.

The ruling blew up when the 25-year-old father shot and killed the 9-month-old child and himself ten days later. Now the judge, Robert Lemkau, is facing an election challenger who has put the episode at the center of his campaign. Recently demonstrators picketed outside the judge’s court with signs branding him a “baby killer.”

In court, the judge had told the mother he suspected she was lying. More recently, he apologized to her. Yet the judge faces an uproar of local anger, which according to an Associated Press article, might have faded away if he were not sitting in a state where judges are elected. He faces voters June 8.

Given his challenger’s attacks and public clamor over the case, Judge Lemkau “takes little solace that a growing number of legal scholars are arguing that electing judges rather than appointing them is unseemly and corrupting,” AP reports.

Critics of state systems for electing judges contend that  judges should have the independence to issue unpopular decisions, without facing repercussions at the ballot box.

The final word in the AP story comes from Northwestern University law professor Stephen Presser. He said,”If the judge followed the law, it is simply wrong to punish him for that.” Presser added, “When you start electing judges, they start playing to public sympathies.”

To learn more about the pros and cons of competitive elections as opposed to appointment of judges, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 16, 2010 (boomark / email).