# Massachusetts judges to be elected…



## Gil (Jun 15, 1998)

*Massachusetts judges to be elected&#8230;*
 
Now that I have your attention, how would that headline sit with you? Would you be opposed to or for an election process vs. the current political appointment process? There have been a number of discussions and articles on the subject around the country but what about elected judges here in Massachusetts? The candidates seeking election would still have to meet the same criteria they currently do in the appointed process.
 
I feel that an election process would make sitting justices more accountable for rulings but some say that the general public is not really interested in judicial elections and this is why many sitting judges in other states around the country are voted back to the bench time and time again.

Another issue is that of campaign funds, solicited donations etc&#8230; I feel that this is a huge issue but one that could easily be solved by doing what they are doing in North Carolina. Judges in North Carolina are given a fixed sum of money to run their campaigns. The money comes from a public fund, I'm sure we could just add another court cost fee to fund the kitty.

With outside influences taken care of with a public fund, would you be more open to an election process or are you satisfied with the appointed process that we have in place?


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2010)

Gil, Are you writing up a referendum for a future election day? If most of us went out to get signatures, this would be a shoo-in.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

Elected, without a doubt. I like the NC idea too. 

Hell, my main concerns are accountability/ability to do their job. If they were appointed but could be removed for cause, I'd be satisfied.


----------



## SPINMASS (Jan 30, 2004)

_ I am all for elected judges, with a public fund. Being liberal Massachusetts, we may not fair too much better with elected judges. But hell anything is better than political appointments._


----------



## jettsixx (Dec 10, 2005)

I remember hearing something to the effect of they would be appointed for the first year or two and then be subject being reappointed through an election. That way they would have to stand by their decisions.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2010)

Wolfman said:


> Elected? By the same brilliant voters that gave us such noble statesmen as Kerry, Frank, Patrick, Coakley and an eternity of Kennedy?
> 
> Kind of like asking if you'd like your shit sandwich on white or wheat.


LOL. Well said.

Sent from my Droid Incredible using Tapatalk.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Absolutely not. An elected judiciary is a horrible idea, without a doubt.

I don't know if anyone read my blog from before the change to MC 2.0, but this is an issue I tend to have very strong opinions on, so my apologies if I come off as preachy. Plus it's 3AM, and this probably won't come off as well-explained as I might like. But even though I definately don't agree with many of the decisions handed down by the courts in this state, electing judges will do nothing to solve the problem--and will probably make it worse.

First of all, as anyone who took sixth grade civics knows, the judiciary is the only branch of government not controlled by the people. That's by design. The Founding Fathers would abhor the prospect that judges could be elected; they were put in place to check the branches that were instituted to fullfill the will of the people. This was considered such a crucial principle that John Adams actually saw it as fundamental right and codified it in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which is still in effect today:


> Article XXIX. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. *It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.* It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.


Bottom line: If you're judges are elected, they're not independent. Period.

The advent of judicial elections can be traced to the 1830's with the rise of Jacksonian democracy, this idea that the will of the people should control everything all the time. (Note that the states that don't have judicial elections are mainly in the Northeast, states that both had their governments set up by the 1830's and where Jackson wasn't quite as popular as he was in the south.) But the Founding Fathers ahored the idea of pure democracy, and I would point out, would certainly have most certainly been against the idea of using it in the judiciary.

To speak in a more practical sense in the vein of Wolfie's comment, I will say that by and large, when I hear about the push for elected judges, it always seems to come from my conservative friends. That makes no sense to me. Do you honestly think that in a state where currently all our executive officers are Democrats, all ten Congressmen are Democrats, before Scott Brown a Republican Senator hadn't been elected in almost 40 years, where D's outnumber R's 35 to 5 in the state senate and 141 to 19 in the house, that you're really going to get judges that think the way you do and "more accountable"? They meay be more accountable all right...to their Democratic constituents. If you think judges aren't going to make decisions like they did in Goodridge once they're elected, let me know what you're smoking because I want some.

What's more, the citizens in Massachusetts already have much more power over who gets appointed to the bench than they realize. In Massachusetts, the Governors Council approves the Governor's judicial nominees much in the way the Senate does at the federal level. But the beautiful thing is that that's ALL they do. So when you're voting for a US Senator, the judges they're likely to vote on is but just one factor to consider. When you vote for a Governor's Councillor, becuase that's really all they do (other than some other small things), you have no other factors to consider--that's it. You vote for them soley on that and that alone. The citizens of Massachusetts already have an indirect way of judicial appointments. Seems to me like it should be a beautiful system. And it would be, if people would take five seconds to hit up Wikipedia to figure out WTF the GC actually does, instead of simply going down the row and checking the box for the candidate in the same party as them.

Just a note: Also consider whether the judges that you blame are really responsible for the problems that concern you. Superior Court Judge Kathy Tutman (a Romney appointee) got blasted in the papers for weeks for not setting a higher bail on Daniel Tavares before he went to Washington state and murdered that young couple. What the papers failed to mention was that the DA never filed for dangerousness in that case, which in my opinion clearly places the blame completely on their shoulders. So what was she supposed to do? Become a judical activist and violate the 8th Amendment by setting an exorbinately high bail so he couldn't get out of jail? Not excusing poor judicial conduct here, but make sure that what pisses you off about judges was really their fault.

There are a few other things you could do to reign in judges--use the impeachment power more frequenty, consider changing appealate courts to an even number of justices, appointing judges to non-renewable terms, etc. But I'll save those for later. For now, I think the system we have could use some improvement, but electing judges would be step in the absolute wrong direction.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

That would make for a great Non-Binding Question during this year's election. I absolutely think that Judges should have to be elected with terms and re-election bids. Maybe this system will hold them accountable in their day to day tasks.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Have to agree with Obie on this one, the Judiciary was meant to be able to interpret the law freely, without fear of losing their jobs because their decision was unpopular. The foundation of a Republic is that it protects indvidual rights guaranteed by the law, regardless on whether or not its a popular thing to do. Any other way is simply mob rule. An unrestricted democracy is dangerous, simply look at the history of Athens, where citizens could have their rights voted away by a simple majority. The swaying of the crowd was all that was required. 

Now we all know why this question comes up, particulary with police officers. We routinely see the abuses of the judicary perpetuates, with open hostility to law enforcement and advancement of their own liberal agendas. But to turn the Judiciary into another political office would violate the very principles this country was founded on. Its "activist judiciary" at its worst! Besides, as others have said, in any practical sense, it wouldn't make any difference in our state. We might even get more left-leaning loonies elected into the bench, especially in places like Cambridge or Amherst.


----------



## EnforceOfficer (Jun 1, 2010)

Killjoy said:


> Have to agree with Obie on this one, the Judiciary was meant to be able to interpret the law freely, without fear of losing their jobs because their decision was unpopular. The foundation of a Republic is that it protects indvidual rights guaranteed by the law, regardless on whether or not its a popular thing to do. Any other way is simply mob rule. An unrestricted democracy is dangerous, simply look at the history of Athens, where citizens could have their rights voted away by a simple majority. The swaying of the crowd was all that was required.


I agree...


----------



## GARDA (Dec 30, 2003)

The appointment process to some may appear to be a bit of the 'tail wagging the dog', but in effect don't _We The People_ already empower those who appoint Judges? Isn't election day "_Our Say_" in the current process?

I might liken this to our Union officials... Once they are elected to _The Board_, we entrust that these co-workers do right by the rest of us when we allow them to make decisions which will affect the entire membership. Frequently, these decisions are made without any further discussion with the same co-worker's (or constituents) who chose them to be their voice in such matters, all by design.

I can't disagree with the idea that this might be a good statewide MA. ballot question at some point in the future, but for now... if we can just repeal the 6.25% sales tax on beer, wine and liquor which was imposed last year... I'd be a happy man. :beer_yum:


----------



## tsunami (Aug 12, 2009)

Wolfman said:


> Elected? By the same brilliant voters that gave us such noble statesmen as Kerry, Frank, Patrick, Coakley and an eternity of Kennedy?
> 
> Kind of like asking if you'd like your shit sandwich on white or wheat.


wolf, you said it best sir~


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

I have very little faith in the voters of this state. They keep electing the same liberal losers year after year. At least with appointed you get the rare chance of a semi conservative elected Gov appointing a semi conservative judge.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

I read the title and got all happy. Now I'm just sitting here disappointed with half a bat going.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

263FPD said:


> That would make for a great Non-Binding Question during this year's election.





GARDA said:


> I can't disagree with the idea that this might be a good statewide MA. ballot question at some point in the future, but for now... :beer_yum:


Can't do it.

There are four topics that cannot appear as ballot questions: Matters concerning religion, specific appropriation decisions, laws that relate to a specific city or town, and issues concerning the judiciary. That constitutitonal amendment was passed in 1918, which tells me the citizens of this state have reaffirmed the importance of an independent judiciary since the consitution was first ratified.



GARDA said:


> The appointment process to some may appear to be a bit of the 'tail wagging the dog', but in effect don't _We The People_ already empower those who appoint Judges? Isn't election day "_Our Say_" in the current process?


My point before was the the Governor's council is a pretty cool process, as the only question you have to ask yourself when you check the box is "Is this person going to appoint the judges I want?"

I agree that process may appear like the 'tail wagging the dog', but that too is by design to prevent fluctating and furvurent, angry, loud majorities from acting too hastily. If you look back to the orginal federal constitution, the only officials who were directly elected were Congressmen. Every other official was appointed by the will of the people, but through an attenuated process: The president via the Electorial College, Senators via state legislatures, the Judiciary through the appointment process.

Of these the judicial branch is the furthest removed, both in the way they are appointed, and in the way matters end up before them: They by and large can't make up whatever issues they want to hear--they have to wait for those issues to come to them as cases.

One last thing: Gil brought up the idea of public funding as a way to resolve intrests spending money in elections. Doesn't work. Businesses simply create PACs that favor particular judicial candidates. The money will be spent, it will just vary as to how.


----------



## Deuce (Sep 27, 2003)

Obie wan Kenobi, you're wasting your smarts being a cop..


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Hey, some people have firearms, some have military history, some have Xbox...I have poly sci and law...

---------- Post added at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was at 00:08 ----------



Deuce said:


> Obie wan Kenobi, you're wasting your smarts being a cop..


I get most of it from reading about the Founding era. Amazing the insght you get from those dudes in wigs...


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

Elected? No way. Appointed, yes. But term limits and contribute to the pension fund like the rest of us schmucks, thank you very much for playing. Some of them sitting in the same chamber for decades are so far removed from reality, I feel sorry for the munis that have no choice but to visit their one and only fiefdom for criminal process.


----------



## uspresident1 (Jan 12, 2007)

Wolfman said:


> Elected? By the same brilliant voters that gave us such noble statesmen as Kerry, Frank, Patrick, Coakley and an eternity of Kennedy?
> 
> *Kind of like asking if you'd like your shit sandwich on white or wheat.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> HAHAHAAHAHHA. One of the best posts I've read on here in a while. Also 100% true.


----------

