tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post4248156692400419314..comments2024-03-26T13:05:52.830-05:00Comments on For What It's Worth: Retention Judges: The default vote is "yes"Jack Leyhanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-51473565469324299632014-10-28T07:24:29.580-05:002014-10-28T07:24:29.580-05:00That's not how our system works, Anon. Judges...That's not how our system works, Anon. Judges don't get to run for retention because no one wants to run against them. Once elected, they no longer have to run in a contested primary. They may hold their seats until death or retirement as long as they are retained. In other words, they are in for life on good behavior, where good behavior is determined not only by the Courts Commission, but by the voters in retention elections.<br /><br />Why in the world would we want to do away with that system in favor of making judges defend their seats in contested primaries (as happens in some of our neighboring states)? Judges would never be removed from politics. You may scoff and say that judges are political now, but forcing judges into reelection campaigns would be putting them smack in the middle of the maelstrom of modern hyper-partisan politics.<br /><br />Judicial elections are different from other elections -- so far -- and judges -- for the most part -- aren't career politicians. Yet they are forced to go -- once -- through public election process. That's defensible, and consistent with good republican (small-r) principles. Anything beyond that, though, would fundamentally change the character of judicial elections, and probably of judges, too. And I promise you wouldn't like the change.<br /><br />As for judges staying on the bench past their prime, the much-reviled pensions that judges earn helps ease some out. The rise of post-judicial career opportunities, particularly in ADR, have pulled some very good judges out of the courtroom -- in some cases prematurely, I think -- but in any event these judges never have an opportunity to grow "lazy" in their judicial roles. Retention elections can help weed out poor-performing judges who don't get the hint from their colleagues or the bar groups that they are not making the grade -- but only if there is a consensus that Judge X is a substandard performer. And that, I submit, is as it should be.Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-40695844152914816222014-10-27T23:35:04.422-05:002014-10-27T23:35:04.422-05:00I am an attorney and I do appear in court. I agre...I am an attorney and I do appear in court. I agree with you if it became the majority view (or 40.000001%) overnight it would not be good, but if we gradually got to 40% no all the time, judges would be too scared of retention and run in primaries. First-time appointees do it. I believe it would keep judges from being lazy and staying on the bench well psst their primeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-90634432054759207322014-10-27T07:05:29.373-05:002014-10-27T07:05:29.373-05:00If your view ever became the majority view, assumi...If your view ever became the majority view, assuming that you really are a lawyer, and sometimes have occasion to appear in court, you would soon regret having advocated this position.Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-57591209582782505052014-10-25T20:41:47.414-05:002014-10-25T20:41:47.414-05:00I'm an attorney and I vote no for every judge....I'm an attorney and I vote no for every judge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com