Time to end judicial elections?

The 2010 judicial elections, “awash in cash and blaring attack ads,” argue for ending the election of judges to the bench, a New York Times editorial declared.

The editorial, entitled “A Blow to the Courts,” cited Election Day outcomes in Iowa and Illinois as among the most troubling. It was one of three major commentaries on recent retention elections. A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial also used the term “body blow” in discussing the Iowa vote, in which three justices were ousted, while a National Review commentary described the vote as an appropriate response to “judicial imperialism.”

Thanks to Gavel Grab for the summary.

In Iowa, outside groups including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association bankrolled a “Vote No” campaign over a unanimous high-court ruling that permitted same-sex marriage. The ouster effort pumped in at least $1 million to dump the judges, while a group working to support them spent about $400,000.

In Illinois, Justice Thomas Kilbride raised about $2.5 million from labor interests, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other groups channeling funds through the Illinois Democratic Party in order to beat back a $650,000 ouster drive by business and insurance interests. The money-raising “from interests with regular business before the court has left a cloud around his tenure,” the editorial said.

Other news media voices have joined in ongoing debate. A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, entitled “Targeting judges,” said:

“Iowa voters chipped away at a cornerstone of justice, which calls for judges to rule without fear or favor. If judges tailor their decisions to the popular will, rather than the law, the courts will become just another political area where the outcome is determined by the highest bidder.

“One hopeful result of the Iowa debacle could be that the legal community pushes back hard against politicizing the bench. For their part, voters in several states showed good sense by rejecting other one-issue campaigns targeting judges.”

In addition, the editorial suggested, the Iowa outcome could be used to defuse criticism of switching to merit-selection plans in Pennsylvania and other states. After all, it said, “no one can say that voters were denied their voice.”