Beware of Calls to Change Michigan Judicial Elections
July 22, 2010
A recent Lansing State Journal editorial called upon Michigan voters to “junk” state Supreme Court elecitons.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young has weighed in with an excellent commentary taking issue with the LSJ and others who advocate eliminating democratic judicial elections such as George Soros and former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
I recommend reading Justice Young’s piece in its entirety, but here are a few gems:
“In Michigan, since we became a State, the People have elected their judges. Elite intellectuals hate this because they frankly don’t believe the “public” can be trusted to make intelligent choices about who should sit on our benches. (What else would you expect from elites?)”
“When judges aspire to be social engineers rather than interpreters of the law, their social, political and moral beliefs really matter. And it correspondingly matters much more who gets to puts such persons on the bench.”
“Let’s be honest. Political campaigns are messy. But I think that it is important for those of us who wish to sit on your courts to explain to you what our judicial philosophies are: do we want to transform our society according to our own social, political and moral beliefs or are we “rule of law” judges who will follow the law? We need to meet you and you need to meet us. Having candidates meet the voters is one of the most therapeutic activities that can occur in a Republic.”
“…I suggest that you hang onto your right to vote for judges in Michigan. There is no other check on those who have the power to transform your constitution and our society by personal whim.”
Amen.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Michigan
2 Responses to “Beware of Calls to Change Michigan Judicial Elections”
I have a question: why do sitting judges alone enjoy the designation of “incumbent” on the ballot? Executive and legislative office holders do not enjoy that designation when they run for re-election.
Perhaps it is because incumbent judges lobbied for that special treatment, because they realized that voters really don’t know much about who their judges are unless it is pointed out to them. Neither do they know much about what judges do, in my experience. Incumbents are seldom turned out under such a system.
It is also a reality that most of Michigan’s reviewing court judges and justices first came to office by Governor’s appointment and not be election. I believe Justice Young and Justice Markman had no judicial experience before being appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Engler. They do run for election thereafter under a system skewed to point out, and thuse favor, incumbents.
Let us not accord too much credit to Michigan’s system of judicial selection/election. Political patronage puts most on the bench in the first place, and the incumbency designation insures, in most cases, re-election.
I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I don’t want to ignore the questions.
Be well, Dan.
Oops. That was supposed to be “by election” and not “be election”. It pays to proof read before hitting the “submit” button.