Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How To Become Informed In Judicial Elections?
First time accepted submitter yincrash writes "Today I've been looking up information on local elections and have found it virtually impossible to determine information on judicial elections, both with regards to information on the candidate, and what makes a good judge. Is there a good way to find information on these candidates? chooseyourjudges.org seems to agree that this is basically an impossible task. What do slashdotters do in an information vacuum? Just abstain from voting? Write-in something in protest?"
The Bar does not allow judge candidates to answer many of the questions you would like answered. This professional organization is choosing to require the judge candidates to withhold this information. If the candidates do not follow the rules set by the bar they could loose their law license and be ineligible to be a judge. Your only option is to complain to the Bar in hopes that they will be influenced by your complaint.
I am voting for Bender in my judicial elections. He is equally harsh on all humans. Although I do not know if he can be on the DC Board of Elections and be a judge.
sudo make me a sandwich
If you're in a state where the vote isn't "choose between Person X and Person Y to be a judge", chances are the vote is to retain an existing judge for another term. My philosophy has been that, unless I become aware of gross misconduct (i.e. bribery, criminal prosecution, failure to recuse self when obviously interested in the case, etc.), I vote to retain
The rationale is that the judiciary is supposed to be apolitical. If they have to go through campaigning, the way other candidates do, they become subject to campaign contributions and all the evils those entail. Leave them where they are unless they've done something obviously wrong.
I think it's best to not vote on items you don't know about. If a particular judge has enough of a sketchy record that it comes to your attention, then it's fair to vote them out. We should all really be paying more attention to our officials, but I understand that it's difficult.
You won't find much public information out there for most judges. They typically have to delete or make private things like LinkedIn when becoming a judge and are very careful with their public comments. Your best bet is through the local grapevine, or failing that the endorsements of the local bar association.
Go lo-tech and read the paper or your mail (not email). Otherwise, you can probably just call and talk to them. At my last local election, the candidates for the board of supervisors were at the polling station ready to talk to people. That's a welcome difference from the national elections where we're basically nameless sheep to all the candidates.
What has surprised me is the elections for the county school board. Most of the board runs uncontested every time. If you have kids or own property, they have a lot more to do with your life than whatever republicrat makes it into the white house.
I approve this message.
I see firehose has stories on the Ohio voting Software installed 4 days before the election, but I notice those stories keep getting voted down. Or flagged with misleading comments.
Why is the installation of uncertified software on county tabulators in Ohio 4 days before an election not big news?? I have a lot to say /rant on the subject!
Ohio had provable voter fraud in the Republican Primaries:
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/2012/10/rigged-elections-for-romney/
That was detected in August. The contract for this system (called EXP) was signed in September. The software installed 4 days before an election.
It is claimed as *test* software, but will be installed on *live* machines used in the election.
It has not been certified. EXP was not discussed at June meeting of voting machine examiners, it is new software:
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/mediaCenter/2012/2012-06-11.aspx
These are the same tabulators that showed the detected signs of voter fraud.
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/stolen-election-2004-plus-the-voter-fraud-scam-series/wisconsin-no-tabulator-versus-tabulator-counties/
The man in charge of the Ohio elections, Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, also introduced some last minute vote suppression directives. This one makes provision ballots invalid if you haven't filled in an extra form correctly. But Ohio law makes the *polling*staff* the one to fill in that form not you.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/ohios-provisional-ballot-order-the-biggest-legal-story-of-the-weekend/264498/
Jon Husted had previously set shorter early voting limits, that was blocked by the courts and so he defied the court:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-861538
He fired two Election officials who complied with the court order, and ultimately set short days on the weekend as partial compliance, so Sunday it's open 1pm to 5pm.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/judge-jon-husted-can-fire-ohio-elections-officials
Early voters show a strong bias to Obama (57% to 38%) which is why he's so keen to block them from voting.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9fe706c7-86ef-4698-b0d3-15ec2d79d203
Bad software, bad actor, proved fraud in the Primaries, a bunch of last minute rule changes with a political bias. Why are we not discussing this?
Today we hear news stories of people coming to the polls and spending an hour reading constitutional amendments, trying to figure out how they're going to vote on them. In other words, they are deciding the fate of their state's constitution without any forethought.
This is commonplace, because in this so-called representative democracy, we are disenfranchised all of the time except for one moment every few years.
How much longer until more people start working on the system that will enable us all to always participate in the decisions that affect our lives?
Well, in the UK we have police commissioner elections with similar problems at the moment.
In my state (Nebraska), the state bar association publishes a biennial review of justices by lawyers in the state, including responses to the question "Should this judge be retained in office?" Since these are responses from attorneys actually practicing in the the courts of these judges, I believe they are in the best position to offer an opinion as to the judge's competence and fairness, the two criteria I think are most essential in a judge.
You're not in an information vacuum - the information is there, it's just buried.
I can't speak for every state, but here in Missouri, the Missouri Bar association runs a website which publishes recommendations from a Bar association committee based on individual performance evaluations provided by lawyers, and also reports on the technical quality of opinions written by the judge in question. They summarize their findings very nicely, provide a "Retain/Dismiss" recommendation, and cite sources for all of their claims and opinions.
I'd recommend browsing your state's bar association website to see if they offer a similar service.
Attending Northwestern University in Evanston, I came across a "voters guide" to the judges stuck to a lamp post. I wish I had copied it down or photographed it, it was a complete classic exercise in an unabridged and uncensored rundown of who these people are. One remark sticks in my mind nearly 40 years later, that a Cook County judge had the nickname "Fathead McGillicuddy." The colorful nature of the remarks only got better from there.
Would that we could get the rumors and the slanders and the inuendo and the things known to the poor defense attorneys (and defendants). One can always run such "through a filter" to sort out genuine dirt from campaign hyberbole, much as we process the negative ads the major office seekers run against each other. But at least it would be something to go on.
Any judge in office today is enforcing bad law. This means they are bad people. Throw them all out.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Here judges run with public political affiliations. I vote for the Democratic judge, else (if one isn't available) the Libertarian judge, with the hope that they'll be more willing to look at reform over confinement, and try to be more lenient where possible in marijuana possession cases.
Republican judges only want to put as many people in prison as possible, since that's what it means to (*beats chest*) be Tough On Crime, which is all they advertise about. I don't consider that unbiased.
I do not vote for judges who claim to be "tough on drugs/drug offenders" or judges who advertise their high conviction rate. (Which is pretty much all of them.) I want correct interpretation of the law and presumption of innocence, not jails full of non-violent offenders. The last one I remember voting for advertised that she (as a private lawyer) had success getting bad laws knocked down and going after corrupt politicians. She lost.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
They can work to change the judicial selection process. The purpose of the courts is essentially anti-democratic: cases are supposed to be decided based on the law, not on which outcome will be most popular with the general public. It's a bad idea then to have judges constantly having to run for elections as this creates an incentive to bias their rulings against unpopular parties and for popular ones.
I'm, a Libertarian, so I vote that party where possible. If there's no Libertarian candidate in a race, I vote republican, since Republicans are (very narrowly) more Libertarian than Democrats. But, when it comes to judges, if there's no Libertarian, I pick the Democrat, since on the whole, Democrats will be more reasonable in drug cases than republicans. For what it's worth....
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
My friend (and attorney) and I are Republican and Democrat, respectively. However, as much as we love to argue politics, we have a lot of respect for each other personally. I find that he is ethical, honest (this is supposed to be an oxymoron - the "honest" lawyer.. if irritating at times - as I'm sure he finds me as well - what are friends for, after all), and willing to admit when a Republican candidate is unsuited for the job they are running for. When he recommended a particular candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court as someone who is beholden to no one, is an honest/ethical judge, I paid attention. Unfortunately, this was after I had already voted (early), or I would have probably voted for this person.
So, determining which judicial candidate is suitable for the position may be a process fraught with difficulties. I don't think there is a simple answer to this question, but I think you can find information on how they have ruled in relevant cases to determine if they are beholden to vested interests or not. This isn't simple, but perhaps possible. And having an attorney whom you trust to ask about a specific judge can be useful! :-)
Things to check:
- Your local bar associations often provide ratings of who they think is good.
- Your local papers will probably have endorsements and explain why.
- Any organizations you support may have voting guides.
- Of course, if you've had any dealings with the court system in question, you can use your own experience to decide on incumbents at least. For example, I could intelligently vote on 1 of the judges running this year because I'd been in her courtroom as a juror.
I am officially gone from
I go to http://www.smartvoter.org/ for almost all of my candidate research. You can't see a judge's prior rulings from there, but at least some of them post their priorities. If a candidate doesn't submit a profile to their database, I usually ignore them come election day.
I don't like anybody holding power for too long, and typically when a judge gets elected it's a position for life. Most attorneys are reluctant to run against a sitting judge, so many times they don't even have an opponent. So when they do have an opponent, I usually vote against the one with "Judge" in front of their name.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Can't go too wrong using that approach.
Pick people have a vested interest that you care about and works with the judicial system on a regular basis and ask their opinion about the judges.
For instance, I live in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA. I have a few friends who are in law enforcement and one who is on the drug task force. They have issues with some judges being extremely lenient on drug offenders. I also have a friend who is a lawyer, mainly civil cases. So I usually know a list of judges who they feel are reasonable, and I'll vote for them. Otherwise I vote against the incumbent.
Don't you kind of expect that there's going to be some of that on a US-based site with a largely US-based membership? Don't be like my countrymen who travel abroad and complain that nobody speaks English.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
I'm just watching ads. You think the bar is going to tell you Judge Johnson uses tax dollars to fund parties for baby rapists he odered early released?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In the ballot I just voted on, all or nearly all of them were running unopposed.
But there was a space fore a write in
This is the first US election I have voted in - I only became a citizen in 2009
And in the last week we have had phone calls asking us to vote for "One Man One Woman"
which was a good song, but I don't think it was Abba's best
This may be a bit too much in the vein of Slashdot-centric posting. Others will agree, and I may be modded up into the stratosphere. Yet I keep and will keep saying that predicting your own possible mod-point oppression is one of the major negative characteristics of Slashdot posters, besides all the positive stuff there ( still ) is.
Certainly not a disinterested source, but the local bar association usually has a list of the judges and recommendations FOR or AGAINST many of them. I just saw the one from the Chicago Bar Association, and most of the votes were "Yes" (retain) with a few exception.
Since the bar represents the attorneys who deal with the judges on a regular basis, I figure they likely have the most experience with judges. You can usually do a quick Google on their "no" suggestions and find plenty of juicy stories (sleeping, shouting, capricious rulings, etc.)
Generally: in the absence of information on a topic, leave it blank.
Get over yourself.
I asked my friend who's a general practice lawyer. He does defense work, family law etc. They tend to know all of the people running personally and are most interested in a fair and impartial judge regardless of party. Other than that I couldn't find any information online or in newspapers. The media doesn't seem to care about district/municipal judges which is incorrigible since they influence the general public more directly than any other elected official.
I came across this site while doing research as well.
From the site:
It came in pretty handy. Perhaps other states have similar web sites?
Yeah, God forbid a site hosted by Americans, run by Americans, and mostly read by Americans ever have anything pertaining specifically to America.
Where I am our Judicial voting is based on whether to retain the Judge or not. It makes it simpler. If I see a political ad about a judge or know any information about the judge then I vote to fire them. If I know next to nothing about them then they must be doing their job right. We've only had one time in 30 years where we actually had two candidates on the ballet at the same time and that was because the predecessor purposefully timed his retirement to coincide with the election.
Judges are usually [amoral] elite attorneys whose decisions get worse with time. In general, justice has a better chance of being served by voting against incumbants.
So to sum up your comment, you don't dispute a single thing about what I've said.
Not the detected vote flipping fraud in the Primaries.
Not the new uncertified software, EXP installed on Ohio voting machines just before the election.
Not that the software was never discussed at the previous June meeting, it is new.
Not the odd timing, how the vote flipping was detected in August and the software ordered in September.
Not the political partisan nature of the man who ordered it.
Not the bias, early voters have to Obama.
Not the last minute rule change, or the attempt to limit early voting, or the sacking of election officials for complying with the court order.
Not a single thing about what I said, you dispute.
If you want to make an informed decision concerning judicial candidates there is regrettably only one thing you can do: dedicate a painful amount of time to seeing how they act in court first hand. Looking at rulings and public records does almost nothing to break down what goes on in the court on a day to day basis or communicate the prejudices and attitude of the judicial candidates. If you want to know who you should vote for you have to see them in action. This isn't really an option for most people, but luckily many communities have a dedicated group of volunteers who regularly attend court for no other purpose than providing information to the public concerning not only the activities of the judge but of the court in general.
When I first became a court stenographer I noticed that the same few people seemed to be in the gallery every day. I eventually found out that they were volunteers from a local judicial monitoring group that tried to keep the public apprised of what went on in their courts. Over a decade later I happened to recognize one of the ladies at my churches sewing circle. I found out that they, (mostly retirees with some connection to the legal system; wives and parents of law enforcement or even former DA's and attorneys) try to have someone at every public hearing, but that for the most part people don't seem to care what goes on in their courts. She told me that while it's hard to find someone to attend it's even harder to get the public interested in what is going on.
Look at the local newspaper, many publish information that will help you find such a group. You might find an advertisement seeking "court watchers" as they call themselves or even a quarterly report they pay to publish. Contact anyone you know who has an affiliation with the local court system and they will likely be able to tell you directly, or point you to someone who can, if their is such a group in your area. Too often people only think of their courts when they're in them, I for one am glad your interested.
Then why in the hell did you read and comment on this?
Stop reading that which you don't want to read. Don't participate in discussions you're not interested in. You knew what this was about from the headline - why did you go any further?
The Americanocentrism in this article is miniscule compared to the egocentrism of your post.
Many jurisdictions have a legal newsletter or website for attorneys. They often provide excellent coverage of judicial races.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
People who actually have a job are more likely to vote Tuesday then weekend?
With no real information available, much less some empty campaign sound bites, take a standard Wild Ass Guess based on party affiliation. Assume that they tend toward the party platform and that on controversial issues they will be closer to their party's position than the other party's. Of course most judges won't be dealing with controversial issues but existing judges tend to be the ones that get tapped for positions such as supreme courts (state or federal) so you're still feeding the minor leagues with prospects for the majors.
Given that and the current Republican intent to make more massive intrusions into the privacy of my (and your) home, in today's election I voted for every non-republican on my judicial ballot with a couple of exceptions - do you want an unknown Democrat or an unknown Libertarian? That would be an easy choice except that some 'Libertarian' candidates are really ultra-conservative republicans that lost their party's primary. In those three cases today, I had to make a mental coin toss. Caveat emptor, YMMV, etc.
Oregon has a fun law passed during WW-I when most voters(men only) were unavailable requiring all lawyers running for office to be members of the state bar association. The state bar association by its rules will disbar anyone running against a sitting judge in Oregonthem disqualifying. That is why unless there is a vacated seat you never get more than one choice in Oregon. In Soviet Oregon Judges vote for who you can vote for.
This may be a bit too much in the vein of US-centric Slashdotting. Others will disagree, and I may be modded down into oblivion. Yet I keep and will keep saying that Americanocentrism is one of the major negative characteristics of Slashdot, besides all the positive stuff there ( still ) is.
Try The Firehose.
And as they say on election day here in the US: "If you don't vote (for articles of interest to you) you can't complain!" Actually, I put that parenthetical part in there myself. But really, go vote up the stuff that sounds interesting. There's a story about Skype and a Dutch teen. A BBC story about a guy resurecting Elite, something about the Portuguese government and cloud services, Welsh fiber optic researchers, another depressing story about Nokia . . . If you don't find something you like, contribute a story. Don't count on me to guess what you and other readers outside the US find relevant, help out. Maybe we'd like something other than election coverage in the US, too.
I am not a crackpot.
You're a moron. I live in Ohio, there were machines voting Obama when people selected Romney, it made local news...did it make national? nope. Why? You guess.
Anyhow, early voters are the ones bussed, hustled, paid to vote early. Again, I watched it in Cleveland....even high-school students were bussed in to vote...I'm sure they're soooo informed like you...skull full of mush.
Most of our judges have web pages which list endorsements. On e will usually have endorsements from fellow judges and the other will have a lot of endorsements from unions such as the AFL-CIO and Fraternal Order of Police and such. I just vote for the one without the union endorsements.
A friend of mine is a small-town judge. He's elected, but it's a part-time job (10 hours per week I think). He's judge in the town where he lives and works as an attorney in a neighboring town.
In his small town, my friend got elected because the town councilmen asked him to run. They'd worked with him in his day job (where he was representing a company trying to get permits in the town and whatnot) and thought he was a good guy. This is how things get done on a local level: the local officials say "we need a new judge" (or registrar of deeds or whatnot) and pick someone they think is level-headed and responsible.
What I'm trying to say is that unless you are plugged into local politics, it probably does not make much difference to you whether your new judge is someone the Republicans think is a good guy, or someone the Democrats think is a good guy. You'll get a good guy either way -- unless of course all the members of one party are a bunch of jerks, in which case you don't trust their judgment and want the other guy.
At the local level, some of these positions are just a popularity contest. I usually abstain because I have never lived in one place long enough to know who's who.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
For myself, I have found that the incumbent judges are marked on my ballot as incumbents. I have yet to stand in a court, in front of a judge I thought was worth his weight in attitude. So, I vote for new judges, at all levels. When the system changes, so will my vote.
>Why are we not discussing this?
because slashdot is pro-GOP!
There is a spattering of information on the candidates at http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/ but nothing sent through the mail. My parents, nor anybody else I know for that matter, knows anything about their local candidates. It's an utter sham.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Early voters have jobs too, we have to vote early because we don't have 6 hours to stand in line on a Tuesday, we have to be at work instead.
Yes, Slashdot is very pro-GOP
sudo make me a sandwich
At least for your states Supreme Court you can lookup their written decisions. Sometimes Wikipedia has a listing of individual judges and their decisions for your state. Pick an issue you know when to the state court and lookup the decision. Each state should have these decisions online in some form. Try searching for keywords like Abortion, Marijuana, Alcohol (Wine shipments to your state and microbrew issues). In Indiana we are trying to vote out "Steven H. David" for his decision stating "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
It all starts at 0
No this is NOT the dominion system, it's extra software commissioned in September by
http://bradblog.com/Docs/Ohio_ESS_Contract_091812.pdf
The claim is that it doesn't need to be certified because its test software. See page 14 onwards, they say it's "high level enhancements to ES&S election reporting software that goes beyond the current functionality".
The best way is to look at their rulings and try to understand their rationale. I find that especially for Appellate court races, it helps to examine prior cases, especially ones that are important to you. Do they stray from prior precedent? Do they seem to wildly interpret or misconstrue the intent of a statute that is activist in nature, i.e. an "ends justify the means" philosophy or are they strict "rule of law" justices that are completely impartial? If they have no prior experience as a judge, look at their endorsements and their character. The bench should never be used for activism, especially if you personally disagree with the outcome. It is always the responsibility of the legislature to craft good statutory language that can stand on its own in compliance with constitutional law and precedent. Once I became educated in law, I actually prefer conservative rule-of-law judges because it enforces the idea that we need to hold our politicians accountable rather than rely on a court to "make the problem go away" on bad foundation.
Not as much as, say, a legislator or mayor, but judges definitely are part of the political process. For example, right now, judges in the Bronx are heavily involved in the stop-and-frisk policy debate, mostly because they've been throwing out bogus "trespassing" charges caused by the police randomly harassing people in the hallways of public housing projects.
Good judges see their role as the umpire calling balls and strikes, but like umpires the size of the strike zone varies a bit: Some are more friendly to prosecutors / plaintiffs, some more friendly to defendants. Some are more concerned about taking the time to ensure fairness, some are more concerned with not wasting the court's valuable time with trivialities. Some will be faced with completely unprecedented sets of facts where there isn't good guidance from the legislature or legal precedent, and under those circumstances only have their own opinions and sense of fairness to draw on. Some will be more strict about when they should recuse themselves than others.
I am officially gone from
Don't you kind of expect that there's going to be some of that on a US-based site with a largely US-based membership?
Alexa.com puts Slashdot audience as 27.6% from USA, closely followed by India at 25.8%. Then are Canada and UK at about 5% each and the last third consists of long tail of countries (Germany, France, Pakistan, Australia...) with less than 3% each. So while USA, making up one fourth of the audience, is the largest single group, the "largerly US-based membership" seems a bit misleading. Are those statistics accurate? I don't know but they're the best ones available to us as /. hasn't commented on this at all, aside from the decade old faq entry.
That all said, I (being from Europe) don't mind US-centric stories: My reasons for reading Slashdot are, to some extent, similar to my reasons for watching the daily show. It offers nice glimpses to the society on that side of the ocean.
Your preferred political party's web site probably offers their opinion on the judges. If you have no preferred political party, check your favorite site for atheists. :-)
"1.2 EXP was written to US Election commission 2002 voting standard... but has not been submitted to a voting system test laboratory to date. Because customer is requiring only functional testing of EXP, EXP will not require federal or state certification for Customer Acceptance testing or for use in any election in Ohio."
The contract claim it doesn't need certification. This is not true:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3506.05
"(B) No voting machine, marking device, automatic tabulating equipment, or software for the purpose of casting or tabulating votes or for communications among systems involved in the tabulation, storage, or casting of votes shall be purchased, leased, put in use, or continued to be used, except for experimental use as provided in division (B) of section 3506.04 of the Revised Code, unless it, a manual of procedures governing its use, and training materials, service, and other support arrangements have been certified by the secretary of state and unless the board of elections of each county where the equipment will be used has assured that a demonstration of the use of the equipment has been made available to all interested electors. The secretary of state shall appoint a board of voting machine examiners to examine and approve equipment and its related manuals and support arrangements."
Ohio's claim is that it isn't for 'voting machines, marking devices, automatic tabulating or software to cast tabulate or communicate" hence it doesn't need to be certified.
However it is being installed on the tabulators. It necessarily has access to the voting results. The claim that its only installed on the supervisors PC is false, it is on election equipment, and it IS uncertified, it IS installed a few days before an election and WAS commissioned just after voter fraud was detected in their primary results.
I just Google around and find out which party endorses them then go with my party.
There really shouldn't be any evaluation of judges other than whether they apply the law impartially. Many people can't resist voting for or against judges who make decisions they disagree with, not understanding that a judge's job is to interpret the law and apply it whether they agree with the law or not.
Early voters are voting for Obama because everyone who actually has a job will be voting for Romney.
There was early voting on the weekends too, anyone with a job (such as I) was free to do so then.
Never vote for a (criminal law) judge that hasn't worked both prosecution and defense.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Did you submit a question when your country was having an election?
I'm in a slightly different position, being a Free State Project early mover. ALL of us on the ground moved here to be politically active, and we have a pretty extensive network to share information on these things.
It helps GREATLY that several of us are lawyers and have direct experience with many of the judges and judicial candidates. Since it's not easy to start your own political migration, and you may not have the kind of intentional network that we do, my advice would be "If you have any friend or friends-of-friends who are practicing lawyers, ask them."
If not enough information is presented, I'll write in a friends name as a protest vote.
" It's an utter sham."
ah yes, not getting involved now equals the election are a sham. The fact that you're parents can't bother to think about anything that isn't spoon fed to them in the mail doesn't bode well for you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To familiarize yourself with your local Judicial system you need first hand information on the judges. Get yourself a bunch of citations for minor infractions and contest them all. Some places assign judges randomly so you have a chance of appearing before most of them. Keep a blog on your experiences. The judges that restrict your rights, don't let you have a jury trial or are overly biased towards the prosecution should be voted out.
Please don't write-in a candidate unless you mean it - it can cause extra work for the already-stressed poll workers. For the optical scan machines that are in use in Michigan, any ballet with a write-in is sorted into a separate bin for manual processing; I'm guessing that many other such machines behave similarly (though I would guess that touchscreens don't require manual intervention). Any such "protest vote" will not go any further than your own feeling of accomplishment, the poll worker's annoyance, and perhaps a footnote on a precinct total. Find a different way to convey your dissatisfaction.
Our three (up for retention) judges blatantly engaged in partisan politics. I'd be happy to see them go.
If you can, look at who is endorsing which candidate. If one is endorsed by the AFL-CIO and the other is endorsed by the NRA, you have a basis for deciding. These organizations have people who analyze the judges' performance from their own point of view, saving you the trouble. If, however, you disagree with both the unions and gun lobby, this isn't much help.
First, please understand that there are two different types of judges, trial judges and appellate judges. Each has a different function and a different work day. A trial judge is at the front line of the justice system. Within the justice system, there are different types of legal actions, such as criminal prosecutions, family law (divorce, parenting plan, child support, adoption, etc.), civil suits (one person suing another, actions to enforce contracts, employment, debtor/creditor etc.), probate, and constitutional law (getting a governmental agency to release documents, or follow its own rules in coming to a land-use decision, etc.). So, a judge either needs to have a background in that law, or the ability to learn quickly to make the right decision. Because judges referee trials, they need to know the rules of evidence and have a rough idea of the case law and statutes for that appropriate branch of the law. Judges are generally overworked, so a judge needs to be an efficient manager. And judges should understand human motivation, for better conclusions, management and public confidence. A trial judge also is occasionally the 'trier of fact' as well as the trier of law, meaning that a judge frequently is called upon to figure out just what the facts are, as well as how the law applies to the issues and situation. So, you want a judge who is judicious, right? After the conclusion of trial (or if an issue is dispositive of which way a trial would go), an aggrieved party can generally appeal the decision of the judge. An appeal concerns a legal decision, rather than a factual decision. For example, a trial judge is like a line judge at a tennis match. The trial judge needs to know whether a ball that hits on the line is in or out, and correctly perceive where the ball hit. An appellate judge determines whether a particular trial judge in a particular instance made a correct ruling of the law. Did the line judge have it right when he or she said, "a ball that hits on the line is considered in play"?
So, it does not matter whether a trial judge believes in a woman's right to choose or that conception begins at birth. It does not matter whether a trial judge believes that the right to bear arms is personal, rather than civic. It does not matter whether a trial judge believes that a person ought to have the right to defend himself with deadly force rather than walk away. It doesn't matter because that isn't what a trial judge is being asked to do. A trial judge needs to know what the established law is. If a trial judge makes a decision along these lines in a trial, the side that loses will appeal the trial judge's decision to the appellate court, and they get to decide. You should not be hiring umpires on whether they believe that the designated hitter is a benefit or detriment to the game of baseball. You hire umpires because they know the rules, know how to apply the rules, can correctly perceive reality in stressful ambiguous situations, and know how to keep their cool when a manager loses his or hers -- just as you want to choose a trial judge. So, be wary of candidates for trial judge running on platforms of abortion/right to choose or guns or any other larger social issue. This demonstrates that they don't understand their job, or that they are trying to appeal to your emotions.
If a candidate for trial judge has a background as a prosecutor or public defender, you can be assured that that candidate knows the rules of evidence and trial procedure inside and out. There is no other type of law that involves courtroom work as criminal law. And a public defender represents about 5 to 10 times the number of clients in a given year as a criminal defense attorney in private practice. If a criminal case is like a game of cards, a public defender has 5 to 10 times the number of games played per year as a criminal defense attorney in private practice. It is common though to disparage public defenders as judges. "How can you represent someone who is obviously guilty?" It's easy. It'
Here's a good tip a friend of mine gave me.
In my county, usually their prior job titles are listed.
If you're "tough on crime" vote for the candidate who used to be a Prosecutor or District Attorney.
If you're for "fair trials" vote for the candidate who used to be a public defender.
Another way would be to say "tough on innocent victims", instead of "tough on crime". Or "weak on crime" instead of "fair trials", depending on which way you swing. ;) Maybe someone else can come up with labels that aren't as emotional.
The rationale behind this rule is that former prosecutors and district attorneys were motivated by guilty sentences (whether the person is guilty or not), while former defenders were motivated by innocent sentences (also unrelated to guilt).
Does this rule work all the time? No, does it work some of the time, I have no clue. But it's one rule I use when electing judges now.
Joseph Elwell.
Recounts are bad enough without having to read write in jokes. Especially when the other side has been told to purposely make life miserable and stall - they'll dispute the thing just to create more work at the next phase.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
As a litigator, I have trouble advising people on how to vote on any given judge. There are some judges I would like to see removed from the bench - simply because they're bad (don't read motions, show up late, don't listen to argument, make their decision when they receive the Complaint, ignore case law when it suits them, are consistently head-shakingly wrong, etc) - others I would like to see removed because their courtroom demeanor or procedure slow down cases and make litigation much more expensive.
/bad/ judges). The best I can do is pass around the local bar association's voter guide. Because the folks that write that guide are all attorneys the packet is mostly a bland recitation that most judges are qualified, occasionally with a very soft rebuke "needs to work on being more efficient and prepared" with the worst of the worst bad actors singled out at the ends as "not qualified."
/sigh
Now here's the problem -- I can't tell you who these judges are. I won't even say anything about them when I can do so anonymously. Why? Because I know most of them will still be judges next week, and I'll have to appear before them. (remember, these are the
Saddly, I think the informed voters get lost in the shuffle of folks that just show up and hit yes on every judge's retention ballot.
It's not easy, but it can be done. The work of courts is complex. While it is inevitable that politics will on some level guide a court's composition, the task of a judge differs from that of a legislator or executive. It's rarely the kind of sexy work that makes big headlines, and judges are really supposed to avoid the grandstanding, campaigning, and sloganeering we're used to for legislative and executive elections.
So start searching for the work of your local trial, regional appellate, and state supreme courts as part of your newsgathering. This is usually easier with high profile cases, but the less sexy property disputes of local business bigshots will be a good source, too.
At trial, a judge is there to ensure the fairness of the process, not to guarantee a specific verdict. So you want to look at how they shape the process, rather outcomes. For example, the judge in the Colorado movie theater shootings eliminated cameras from the courtroom after that early hearing that resulted in orange-haired pictures being plastered all over the place. The sort of thing you should consider: do you think that kind of move will enhance the integrity of a fair trial, or do you think that it would be in the interest of justice for wide-open media access?
Once you get a better sense for what you think a good judge is, you can then investigate the records of various candidates to determine their qualification. Many will come from DA offices or large practices. Some will already have time on other benches, but you have to extrapolate how qualified they will be in ensuring a just process by their work as an advocate.
I have been lucky enough to have been able to dig up videos and transcripts of debates between some judges in our state but I still found more useful information in our local paper than I could find on the Internet. Even then I was still quite lazy and ended up leaving some blank.
No need saying this here need to be careful about trolling the net for political advice because you will find it.
I thought going for records of endorsements of various groups was a good approach but vast majority of such groups appear to mearly be fronts or driven by factors having no relationship to their title... often local judicial nominations are not on the radars of any significant/well known organizations so the endoresements you see if any are garbage.
The same way sometimes if you go on voting records for political offices the names of the bills can have no relationship to content of the bills or reason for vote.
Knowledge is power but with power comes responsibility... I keep finding the more you get from even purely fact and data driven sites the more you can fool yourself if you are not exceptionally careful and are not one of those types who live for politics.
electing judges is stupid. The average person is too dumb and too ill-informed to evaluate them. They should all be appointed.
I don't necessarily want anything too crazy, just a sampling of their decisions. Much the same info would be nice for your average politician (voting record). All of the judges in my ballot simply say they will "judge per the law", even though the few decisions I could find suggested they don't.
I vote to retain the judges with the names that I find amusing. I make super informed choices.
I have a lawyer friend and since the judges here are mostly running for reelection or are attornies running to be a judge, he usually knows which one is fair or not. it's a hard thing to see a drug addict get a prison sentence instead of some help.
There is votingforjudges.org, which is a great start.
Wish I could help more for other states!
Cherish. Live. Dream.
Judges are corrupt. Lawyers are corrupt. LEOs are corrupt. Legislation is corrupt. Legislators are corrupt. Lobbyists are corrupt. Political parties are corrupt. Elections are corrupt. If you have money and/or can influence someone with money, you're a player. If not, you're a victim, or a playing piece with the potential to become a victim.
There, now you're informed. Now go back to watching "American Idol."
Talk to lawyers who have appeared before your local judges. Or, if they haven't, they likely talk to other lawyers who have. "Bad" judges tend to have a reputation as being "bad" that crosses party lines.
It always makes me a little ill to see judges campaigning. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not set policy. With all the money going into elections it is even more important that judges are impartial. We don't want judges to make decisions based on popularity or political interests that would affect their electability; they need to be non-partisan and insulated from special interests.
The Founders had it right: maintain the separation of powers so that the judiciary acts as a check on the powers of the executive and legislative, and keep the power of the executive to appoint judges and the power of the legislature to confirm them as checks on judicial power.
Inside for your local, state, and federal judges they have a panel of people to review individual's performace. And although they usually say "12 out of 12" or 8 out of 8 reviewers recommend this person keep their job, I read a bit further than that. To me, any judge who has been a judge for 10+ years is most likely corrupted by now. If they include any lines about "performance is great, but sometimes shows partial bias" then that's an immediate no from me. Nobody should be allowed to remain in their same position for more than 8 years IMO - give someone else a shot. It's the same with congress - these guys who have been your congressman for the last 60 years, and they are way past the standard retirement age, have no clue what the real world is like anymore.