In Part I, I laid out the arguments for the election of judges. Today I take the other side, arguing for the appointment of judges.
Appointing judges, rather than electing them, ensures that the selection process is based on merit and qualifications rather than political considerations or electoral pressures. It also prioritizes the professional expertise and judicial temperament required to uphold the rule of law and administer justice impartially.
One of the key advantages of judicial appointments is the emphasis on selecting individuals with proven legal expertise and experience. Appointments typically involve rigorous vetting processes and input from legal experts and organizations. This helps maintain high standards within the judiciary and reduces the risk of political or personal biases influencing judicial decisions.
Appointments also shield judges from the pressures of electoral campaigns, allowing them to focus solely on their judicial responsibilities. This independence is crucial for maintaining fair and unbiased decision-making, free from the influence of public opinion or political agendas. Judges appointed for their competence and integrity can better serve justice without the need to align their decisions with popular sentiment or re-election concerns.
Now that you’ve read the arguments both for and against the election of judges, what do you think? Should North Carolina follow the South Carolina model and abandon judicial elections in favor of an appointment process?