Some good news came out of California last night:
A few months back, a group called Better Courts Now was formed on the idea that if the state of California just elected that proper sorts of Christian judges on the bench, then controversial issues like Proposition 8 would never even arise. To make that happen, the group backed a slate of candidates with an openly Christian bias who were committed to carrying out God’s will from the bench … and promptly saw each one of them get trounced in yesterday’s election:
Four incumbent judges were headed to easy victories over a slate of challengers who were backed by a group of religious and social conservatives … Judge Lantz Lewis was well ahead of challenger Craig Candelore in early unofficial results, and his colleague Judge DeAnn Salcido was leading challenger Harold Coleman. Judge Joel Wohlfeil was well ahead of Larry “Jake” Kincaid, and Judge Robert Longstreth was handily beating Bill Trask.
In general most voters don’t pay attention to down ballot races, so it’s fairly easy for idealogues to get elected to positions like school boards or city/county councils. They just need to get their voters mobilized to get a majority. It looks like this group made an enough of an impression that people came out to vote against them.
I already have some ambivalence about the election of judges. I know that a judge could be more accountable if they don’t have a lifetime decision and have to face the voters but I’m not sure most voters (including me) have enough information to make good decisions. One thing a judge has to do is sometimes make unpopular decisions, and an appointed position does allow them some leeway to do this. I also know that politicians very often make poor decisions when selecting judges. What do you think? Should judges only be appointed? How should a judge be held accountable if they hold a lifetime appointment?