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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
It's actually very easy to dispute everything you have said.
The Software you talk about being installed in Ohio has been approved by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. No problems detected with the software AT ALL. Since everything else you are talking about is loose conspiracy theories, the rest of your rant is invalid.
I could make the same complaint about Maryland, where the state legislature gerrymandered the congressional districts and put up a misleading ballot measure to approve the new districts. It's politics, that's what they do. Mislead the ignorant masses to retain control.
sudo make me a sandwich
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.
The local paper will typically have recommendations of how to vote for as well. It's not ideal, but you might trust them enough to weed out the crazies.
How do you know that judges aren't doing useful things like throwing out bad evidence and bad cases? How do you know that the incumbent isn't leading the charge against bad laws?
The "throw them all out" idea is incorrect because it fails to reward good public officials, thus providing no incentive for a public official to do the job well.
I am officially gone from
I abstain from voting for anyone or anything I do believe I have a basic understanding of. And if the only person running for a position is the incumbent, then I absolutely refuse to vote. I'd love to have the incumbent look at the paper the next day, see his 50 votes and think "Hmm maybe these people don't really like me at all?" Maybe it will encourage someone to run against them in the next election? It never happens though, people seem to default to filling out the only choice if there is only one choice.
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.
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
You do know that most states don't do partisan elections for judges so their is no Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat Judge to vote for. Just an Independent or two. Most are merit selection or non-partisan selection. Your "method" doesn't work for most state judicial elections.
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
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.
A judges job is to enforce the law. If he's not enforcing the law as written, he's a bad judge. If he's enforcing bad law as written, he's a bad person.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Never vote for a (criminal law) judge that hasn't worked both prosecution and defense.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Your type of thinking is a huge problem. One of the worst in an election cycle. The BLIND BELIEF in what you vote without thinking. It just pisses me off.
Frankly, I can research judges on the internet, becasue any major issue will be in the local news. I can also see if they have a website.
You could also get more information on rulings they have had in mos of their case.
Not that it matter much in most cases becasue there ruling are pretty routine, day to day.
When it isn't a routine situation, then I look close. For example:
When a judge is in a position to release people, and then release violent offender over people who have been busted for non violent marijuana possession, I'll vote against that judge. Unless the person running against them has done something even more stupid.
If you really care(doubtful) you can get involved in a campaign and get more information.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" 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.
"If he's not enforcing the law as written
see, here is the problem you need to understand:
You are ignorant and possible stupid. You have no clue what they do, what it required of them.
You have no idea why they are called 'Judges'.
The fact that you think all laws are bad just tells us you are stupid, and emotionally tied to staying stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Ok dude my ballot was 4 pages long. Not even 8.5x11 pages long. None of the judges had opposition. Most of the local people did not either. If I don't have the time or the energy to run for one of those positions, what am I supposed to do? Force someone to run at gun point? And I didn't say that I vote blindly. I said I abstain from voting when I do not understand an issue. I would think you could be okay with that. At least I am not going down the ballot marking every single D or R on the ballot. But if you're not okay with it, I don't care. It's my right to vote, and I will do so how I see fit. At least I try to tackle the important issues and ignore the ones that I don't have the time to address.
Who said all laws were bad? Your lack of reading comprehension tells us that you are stupid.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Please don't just vote by party name. Do a little research into the individual.
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 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.
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.
But by your own argument, their opponent is someone who desires to enforce bad laws, therefore you cannot vote for them either. Are you suggesting simply abstaining?
upvote parent, plox?