Submitted by dash1986 on 05/05/2008 05:58 PM Flag This Paper
Join Now
Kristopher Williams
English 100
Deborah Proctor
16 April 2008
Currently in Kentucky, judges are elected by popular vote in partisan elections. Under this system, judges are forced to raise money for campaigns in order to win elections, and more campaign cash is needed every year. This compromises the integrity of the system as future rulings may be potentially bought and sold in these elections. To rectify this, some states have already adopted what is called a merit-based system of appointing judges.
As of today there are twenty states, including Kentucky, that hold general elections for judges. Voters in these elections elect judges if their as opposed to them being appointed by a body like the United States Supreme Court. There are those who favor this system citing that the citizen is granted the opportunity and the assurance that he is participating in the democratic process in his community. However, there is a growing movement against this system who point-out its disadvantages. With all campaigns for office, the individual seeking office must raise money to pay for the campaign. Often times it seems that the opponent with the most money wins the election. This is no different with judges, however often money is donated by ambitious lawyers both young and old who may appear before the judge in future cases. It is easily apparent how corruption could take hold under this system. These lawyers may very well be buying themselves future wins and favoritism among judges.
The very concept of a campaign for judicial office is called into question as well. A judge cannot promise to rule a certain way on certain cases. He cannot. A judge must rule on the evidences presented to him, not on his own whims or personal bias. Politicizing judges makes their courtrooms less neutral.
Some states have abandoned direct judicial elections in favor of a different method of judicial appointments. These states have moved to a system much...