Discuss the process involved in judicial elections. What is the ethical concern with this method of seating judges?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In recent years, judicial elections have become incredibly expensive, and the outcome may be influenced by who spends the most money. Because candidates must campaign for support (and votes), they must raise money to pay for media coverage; television, radio, and print media ads; mailers; and other publicity tactics.
To pay for their campaigns, judicial candidates must rely on contributions from groups or individuals. This can include corporations, law firms, and other attorneys who may appear before them as litigants. Some people in the legal profession may make contributions to judicial candidates, hoping that they may receive favorable treatment from those judges at later dates. Interest groups may also contribute, with the same hope of support from a judge who is elected. Special interest groups may attempt to influence the outcome of a race by supplying a candidate with lots of money.
Groups contribute money to the campaigns of judicial candidates that they believe are sympathetic to their views or they may try to defeat candidates whose views they oppose.
Until recently, judicial candidates could not discuss issues or cases before the court or even hypothetically in public. But that changed in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s canon of judicial conduct—which prohibited judicial candidates from speaking about their views on legal and political issues—violated the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. The decision loosened the standards on judicial campaign speech and opened the scope of acceptable judicial political activity.
Critics of judicial elections claim that voters do not have the necessary information to make a choice about the qualifications of the candidates. Most judicial campaigns tend to have low visibility. The press coverage of these campaigns is minimal. And since candidates have not been allowed to discuss their views to the voters, there has not been much for the press to cover. This means that many voters have little information about the candidates to enable them to make an informed choice. Some voters use the judge’s political party identification (if it was known) or maybe a family name, newspaper endorsement, American Bar Association rating, or incumbency as a way to make the choice. Others simply refrain from voting for judges at all.