This article explores the effects of the Roberts Court’s recent First Amendment cases on judicial elections. Arguing that the protection afforded speech rights by the Roberts Court actually promotes the independence, accountability, and quality of state court judges.
This article uses the normative theory of popular constitutionalism as a foundation for new arguments for and against an elective judiciary.
This article presents an analytic taxonomy of the arguments for and against judicial election systems, discusses the costs and benefits of elective judiciaries in the “new era” of higher campaign spending and increased interest group involvement, and argues that there is an underappreciated tradeoff between the health of judicial elections and the health of the judiciary.
This article discusses the 2010 Iowa judicial election, in which voters turned out in unprecedented numbers and three justices were removed, in the context of popular constitutionalism and its relationship to federalism and popular sovereignty.
This article addresses the ongoing debate about judicial elections and proposes measures to combat the troublesome features of elective systems.
This article analyzes the merits of appointive systems and discusses the failure of the electoral system to give judges actual competition.
This empirical study of North Carolina district court elections from 1994 to 1998 examines the impact of a candidate’s sex upon judicial campaigns and judicial elections, concluding that female candidates were able to secure more campaign financing than were male candidates and that it is difficult to demonstrate voter discrimination against female candidates.
This article outlines the history of the movement toward merit selection, analyzes various studies comparing merit systems to elective systems, and concludes that merit-selected judges appear to be more independent from partisan influences, less likely to reflect popular sentiment in their decisions, more diverse, and more ethical than their elected counterparts.
This article briefly summarizes and reviews “In Defense of Judicial Elections” by Chris W. Bonneau and Melinda Gann Hall.
This article reviews the problems associated with judicial elections, including financing issues, unhealthy rhetoric, and the effect of judicial campaigns on public confidence, and argues that an appointive system is necessary for a truly independent judiciary.