Essay: Electing the Supremes - 10/31/06

I have never been able to decide exactly how I feel about the way we choose judges in this state, which is by electing them. 

The average person doesn’t know what skills are needed on the bench. More importantly, most people don’t have the time needed to sort through the resumes and the qualifications of judicial candidates. A candidate for mayor can say, “vote for me and I’ll fix the streets.” Judicial candidates ethically can’t do that. So they are forced to use meaningless slogans like “Vote Jones for justice,” or “Judge White is just right.” 

Yet here’s the strongest argument for electing them: They may at some point be called on to judge … us. If I am going to be sent to the big house for a few years, I think my sentence should be passed by someone I had an opportunity to vote for – or against.

That seems more democratic than being sentenced by someone  appointed by a politician. If we have the right to face our accusers, we should also have a say in selecting those who might send us to jail.

But I can say that I totally oppose the way we select the justices for the Michigan Supreme Court, the highest court in our state.

Under the current rules, they are nominated by the political parties and are listed on the ballot as Republicans or Democrats.

That’s bad for a number of reasons. First of all, the Supreme Court is charged with supervising the entire state court system, as well as interpreting the laws in light of the Michigan Constitution.

Do you believe we should think in terms of partisan justice? I don’t, and I don’t think the framers of the current Michigan Constitution did either. But that document was written in 1961 and 1962, in an era before the country was as ideologically divided as it is now.

We now have a state supreme court that is more polarized than the U.S. Supreme Court – something that stands out constantly in their decisions and dissents. We have four partisan Republican justices and two Democrats. A seventh justice, Elizabeth Weaver, is also a Republican, but more independent.

And there is another problem. I also don’t think the framers realized that the political parties would use the state’s highest court as a retirement home for their washed-up politicians.

The Republicans put Robert Griffin on the state’s highest court after he was defeated for the U.S. Senate, and Jim Brickley after he lost a nomination for governor. Democrats did the same with Soapy Williams, after he lost a bid for the U.S. Senate, and with John Swainson, after he was defeated for re-election as governor.

We need two reforms. To start with, take the political party designation off judges’ names. And second, nominate only candidates who are judges, not politicians. If we are going to have a supreme court at all, we deserve to have one where justice really is supreme.

Hear Audio Story   

Comments

[Dan Smith]

One other reform is to get rid of the incumbent designation on the ballot. This virtually guarentees that incumbents are re-elected.

[Aaron Oesterle]

Jack, I have no problem with arguing we need judges and not washed out politicians, but as is, when you go into vote, you'll find the judges are in the non-partisian section. Yes, they are nominated by the parties, and many are endorsed by the parties, but they are not listed at the polls as democrat or republicain. So you've got this wrong. And frankly, I think its a bad idea, and I think we need to allow the Supreme court to be in the partisan section, with listings for who the Democrats are and the Republican. I know someone who was quite liberal, and voted a straight democratic ticket, but when it came time for judges, he voted for the incumbent (it was all conservatives and Republicans that year). After he found out, he was absolutly pissed over it. We would all like to de-politize elections, espcially elections of judges. But elections are all about politics. And if we are going to keep electing our judges, then we need to accept it, and be honest, and label the judges. Otherwise, we do ourselves significant diservice. Perhaps what we really need is a better way of getting judges - maybe there should be a combination of elections for lower level judges, and higher judges are appointed but only from current lower level judges. But to try and non-partisan an election won't work (the political parties will always find a way to game the system) and this current partial non-partisim system is even worse.