Holding Fair Judicial Elections

When they have to run for election, judges face the same pressures that other candidates for elected office do: donors to their campaigns often expect a return on their “investment.”

“Our system presumes that there are certain principles that are more important than the temper of the times. And you must have a judge who is detached, who is independent, who is fair, who is committed only to those principles, and not public pressures of other sort.”
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

But judges aren’t supposed to be political. They aren’t supposed to consider anything other than the law when they decide cases that come before them. Most people would agree that donors shouldn’t expect to get their way in the courtroom unless the law, not the judge, is on their side.

States that hold judicial elections should consider ways to insulate their judges and judicial candidates from outside influence — or even the appearance of influence. One set of standards for judicial elections is suggested by the Constitution Project, a Washington, D.C.-based bipartisan nonprofit group. It recommends that states:

  • Require candidates to disclose where their campaign donations come from, so voters can decide for themselves if there is a conflict of interest.
  • Discourage candidates from saying in advance how they would rule on certain kinds of cases. Judges should rule on the facts of a given case and the law that affects that case. Prejudging a case by providing an opinion in advance is inappropriate and undermines the process of judging.
  • Prohibit candidates from lying about or misrepresenting their opponents’ records.

Judges are not politicians. They do not represent people or groups of people. They represent the law and the Constitution.

They should be chosen because they promise to ably protect and apply the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions and other laws, not because they make promises to campaign donors.