What are the arguments for and against electing judges rather than executive appointment or legislative selection?

Answer 1

Arguments for electing judges:

1. Accountability: Elected judges are accountable to the voters. They have to answer to voters for their decisions, and they are more likely to represent the interests of the people they serve.

2. Independence: Elected judges are free from political influence. Since they are not appointed by politicians, they have the freedom to make decisions that are in the best interests of the law and the Constitution.

3. Public trust: Elected judges enjoy greater public trust since they are chosen by the people themselves. Citizens feel more invested in the judiciary and are more likely to respect its decisions when judges are elected rather than appointed.

Arguments against electing judges:

1. Lack of expertise: Elected judges may lack the expertise and qualifications required for the position. Some candidates with no legal or judicial experience may be elected, leading to a less competent, less capable judiciary.

2. Political bias: Elected judges may be more susceptible to political pressure and influence from special interest groups. They may be more likely to make decisions based on political expediency rather than strict interpretations of the law.

3. Campaign financing: Judicial elections can be expensive, and candidates may have to rely on donations from special interest groups. These groups may expect a return on their investment, leading to a judiciary that is beholden to private interests rather than the public interest.