As election season approaches, many people do not think about the races below the one for President. Yet in North Carolina we elect our judges, and a number of judicial races will be on the ballot this Fall. Should we elect judges? Today’s blog post examines the arguments in favor of elections. A later post will examine the flip side.
Electing judges provides a direct avenue for citizens to influence the judiciary. Judges remain accountable to the public and arguably reflect the values and needs of the community they serve. Unlike appointed judges, who may be insulated from public scrutiny, elected judges face regular performance evaluations through the ballot box. This system fosters transparency and responsiveness, ensuring that judicial decisions align with societal norms and expectations.
Elections also encourage broader public engagement in the legal system. When judges are elected, voters have a stake in the judiciary’s composition, fostering a more informed and participatory electorate. Additionally, electing judges can help prevent the entrenchment of political patronage and ensure that judicial appointments are influenced by the will of the people rather than by a select few.
Moreover, the election process can act as a check on judicial power, ensuring that judges do not stray from their responsibilities or ignore public sentiment. While the appointment process can sometimes lead to judges who are out of touch with community values, elected judges are directly answerable to their constituents, which can help maintain public trust in the judiciary.
Stay tuned for Part II, which will discuss the pitfalls of electing judges and the benefits of an appointment process.