Litigation

?Why the Law and Politics Shouldn?t Mix?

By Peter Hardin

A campaign by a coalition of religious conservatives to oust four incumbent judges in San Diego County, California, helps make a strong case for an end to state judicial elections, a national legal commentator writes.

Andrew Cohen, legal editor for CBS News Radio, offers his critique in a commentary published by Politics Daily entitled, “The Case Against Judicial Elections: Keep Politics out of the Law.”

Regarding the San Diego County campaign (see Gavel Grab), Cohen singles out one of the challengers–attorney Craig Candelore–who said, “Judges are not supposed to make the law, they are supposed to uphold the law passed by legislators in Sacramento. When judges do not follow the law they do not follow our value.”

Cohen is sharply critical of Candelore, saying, “There is no room in any reputable judicial system for the lowly ‘political’ standard that partisans like Candelore wish to place upon the courts.” Cohen adds about jurisprudence:

“Actually, what judges are supposed to do is evaluate the language of statutes to ensure it comports with constitutional guarantees. No court worthy of respect could follow Candelore’s ‘rubber-stamp’ test.”

Cohen concludes by quoting from retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s recent column outlining arguments for merit selection of judges:

“When you enter one of these courtrooms, the last thing you want to worry about is whether the judge is more accountable to a campaign contributor or an ideological group than to the law. In our system, the judiciary, unlike the legislative and the executive branches, is supposed to answer only to the law and the Constitution.”

To learn more about Justice O’Connor’s advocacy for merit selection, visit Gavel Grab. To learn about appointment and retention systems, check out Justice at Stake’s issues page on the topic.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 07, 2010 (boomark / email).