WV Debates The Pros and Cons of Democratic Judicial Elections
September 10, 2008
West Virginia legislators gathered last weekend to listen to a panel discuss the pros and cons of democratic judicial elections. Chris Bonneau, assistant professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, effectively shot down the arguments typically made by proponents of abolishing democratic elections.
Don’t campaign contributions make it impossible for judges to be impartial? Professor Bonneau:
We have not found any systematic today that judges are voting differently because of campaign contributions.
Aren’t judges different from other politicians like governors or legislators? Professor Bonneau:
Judges are political actors. They are a different kind of political actor, but they are still political actors. They make political decisions every day.
It’s important to remember that our judiciary is not some autonomous tribunal that rests above public oversight and beyond public criticism. It is one of three co-equal branches of government – and like the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary must ultimately be accountable to the people. Democratic elections are the best way to ensure this accountability.