“No Accountability”
February 26, 2010
The “merit” selection campaign is run by sophisticated political operatives, whose public messages are likely tested through polling and honed by focus groups. That’s why they always claim “merit” selection is merely about bringing “fairness” and “impartiality” to our courts. Who could be against that?
But every now and then, someone blurts out the truth and gives the game away. Today’s exhibit is a little item I stumbled onto from H. Lee Sarokin, a retired federal judge. After some throat-clearing about how “unseemly” and “demeaning” it is for judges to have to campaign, Judge Sarokin gets down to business:
“I do not mean to suggest that elected judges are necessarily unqualified or corrupt, but rather that merit selection is far superior to selection by election, since the voting public does not have the slightest idea which candidates are qualified or what are the qualifications for a good judge.” [my emphasis]
Most “merit” selection proponents understandably shy away from such blunt “voters are dunces” arguments. They know that asking citizens to strip themselves of their right to vote for their public servants on the bench is a pretty steep hill to climb, so they offer up meaningless fig leaf of retention elections so voters can labor under the illusion they’re still involved. Judge Sarokin is having none of it:
“As I have said previously, there is a suggestion that elections should be retained because they make judges accountable to the people, but there should be no such accountability.” [my emphasis]
Judge Sarokin proclaims that judges are only “accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law” – and I’ve heard other “merit” selection lobbyists make similar comments. This sounds so noble and high-minded that I’m embarrassed to confess I don’t have the slightest idea what it means.
I’ve seen the Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, DC. There is truly something awe-inspiring about seeing thousands of people quietly lining up every day to take just a quick glimpse at this faded parchment, then march solemnly on with a renewed appreciation for the genius of our Founders. But by what mechanism can this miraculous document hold a judge “accountable?”
Every top government official takes an oath to support the Constitution: the president, House members, Senators, judges – and in states, the governor, legislature and judges. They all swear a duty to uphold it, but someone has to determine whether they have fulfilled that responsibility. In a democracy, that someone is the voters. Saying judges should not be accountable to the people, but only to what their own conscience suggests the Constitution demands is the same as saying they are accountable to no one.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections
2 Responses to ““No Accountability””
[...] American Courthouse: ?No Accountability? Dan Pero – 2/26/2010 [...]
[...] an era where judges routinely look down on the people they serve (see my post on Judge H. Lee Sarokin), it’s refreshing to hear from judges who understand that in a democracy [...]