The very first line in the preamble of the State Code of Judicial Conduct reads, “Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent (emphasis added), fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us.”
Yet the very first thing most candidates for judicial office do is declare their affiliation to a political party. That action, though perhaps only symbolic for many, chips away at the fundamental concept of an autonomous judiciary.
States have a variety of methods of choosing judges, but 18 of them have non-partisan judicial elections at all levels. That’s what’s proposed in HB 2010, which cleared the House of Delegates 90-9-1 and is now up for consideration in the Senate.
Under the bill, the elections for state Supreme Court, circuit judge, magistrate and family court judge would run like county school board elections—non-partisan elections without a primary; the May primary would be the election.
Additionally, the elections would have divisions. For example, if a county has four magistrates, a candidate would choose a particular seat to run for or incumbent office holder to run against, rather than the current cattle-call method where the top four vote-getters are the winners.
That should make for more interesting elections because voters will be able to compare the qualifications of the specific candidates who are running against each other.
Supporters of the bill hope the change will slow the increasing influence of politics and money in judicial elections. Professor Matthew Streb, chair of the Northern Illinois Department of Political Science, has chronicled the trends in judicial elections.
“Candidate spending in judicial elections both at the Supreme Court and intermediate appellate levels has skyrocketed,” he writes. “Interest groups and political parties, recognizing the extreme importance of electing judges who support their views, are becoming more active.”
Supporters of HB 2010 believe a shorter campaign season and one election instead of two will reduce the influence of money, as well as the amount of cash candidates have to raise. They also believe keeping the elections non-partisan will diminish some of the more strident party-based rhetoric.
The legislation provides the best of both worlds; it retains election of judges at all levels so there is accountability, but it also provides for more independence in the judiciary.