Ideologues and elitism in judicial races

If you have ever thought that judges should be elected, the latest crop of North Carolina judicial races should convince you otherwise. Two races feature wacky ideologues who are apparently trying to get elected on the basis of their political beliefs -- a completely inappropriate tactic from a potential judge.

Here's how the Independent, the local alternative weekly, describes one associate justice candidate in its editorial:

In the first of three contested races for associate justice, challenger Rachel Lea Hunter faces incumbent Associate Justice Mark Martin. Hunter's vindictive comments and her kooky campaign tactics have managed to alienate almost everyone, including both political parties and her own campaign manager, who quit and said, "There have been way too many political positions taken by the campaign. I fear that Rachel would have to recuse herself from a tremendous number of cases."

...Hunter, who has just five years of experience as a lawyer and no experience on the bench, is after the lefties (despite the fact that she courted Republicans when she ran in 2004). She's called for the impeachment of President Bush, come out against the war in Iraq, and questioned whether oil companies are manipulating the price of gasoline. But the court is not in need of an ideologue, especially a confused one. Judges' races are nonpartisan for a reason. Intelligent candidates who understand the law and apply it fairly should prevail.

She's calling for the impeachment of President Bush and opposing the war in Iraq! In a judicial race!

Another race features a conservative who assails "activist judges":

In the race for chief justice--the administrative leader of the court system--appointed incumbent Sarah Parker faces Pitt County Superior Court Judge Rusty Duke. Duke is a candidate who wears his political beliefs on the right sleeve of his judicial robe, gushing with conservative rhetoric on the campaign trail. Coming out against "activist judges," as Duke has, is a sure sign of a right-wing ideologue.

Unfortunately, the Independent's revulsion at Duke's language prompts one of the most elitist statements I've ever read:

The truth is, the North Carolina courts are not full of activist judges overturning constitutional safeguards. Those who claim otherwise are either telegraphing how they plan to vote or trying to rouse the rabble who have put a conservative majority on the bench in the last several elections. In the case of Duke, it's probably a little of both.

Apparently, the Independent views right-leaning voters in North Carolina as "the rabble who have put a conservative majority on the bench." In case anyone isn't clear on the connotations of "rabble," here's what Merriam-Webster Online has to say. The word comes from the Middle English term rabel, meaning pack of animals, and in this context it means "a disorganized or disorderly crowd of people: mob" or "the lowest class of people."

The whole thing is pathetic. When will we stop electing judges?

Comments

[joe5348]

All judges are elected, those popularly elected have a larger constituency. Those appointed have a smaller constituency. If you think that appointed judges are necessarily better, well then you haven't practiced law in front of appointed judges. I trust the public rather than politicians to make the right choice.

Joe

[griftdrift]

You should see the Georgia race for Supreme Court.

Joe, I have a counter-argument.

I expect politicians and activists to act like asses.

I expect better from the judiciary.

[Ben]

Well...the Independent Weekly (the "Indy") is an unambiguously left-leaning arts newspaper, just like the Boston Phoenix. You were essentially reading an editorial -- so an opinionated review of the state of things is certainly fair. It's not as though that statement about the 'rabble' appeared on page 1 of the N&O as a news item.

Wasn't Rusty Duke trying to overturn the state's public funding of campaigns? (Can't find a link to that story, heard it on the radio iirc.) That always reeks of "Only those of us with the right backing ought to be able to run for public ofice."

As for electing judges by popular vote: it's a terrible idea. Far better to have vetted by legal experts and voted on by our elected representatives. When the general voting public have a say in judges, it automatically politicizes their role. You can't judge things dispassionately if you're looking over your shoulder, wondering what the voters will think.