POLSCI 242 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Iowa Supreme Court, Retention Election, Nonpartisanism
POLISCI 10.30 Lecture Notes
Judicial Elections
Judicial elections originated from reform aimed at public accountability
150 out of 151 judges in LA County running unopposed
Problem with judicial elections today – advertisements and campaigns
o Judicial attack ads judges have to pay attention to the public response to their judgments
(the just decision may not be popular)
o Judges change behavior in creating harsher sentences
Judicial campaigns
o Judges asking lawyers for contributions
o Conflicting interests – corruption
o Benefit from special interests and big businesses
o We don’t know a lot about the judges, so the advertisements are very influential
Independence v. Accountability
o Independence = judicial elections should not be decided by political factors
▪ With the criterion of independence, we also want indirect accountability
• Indirect accountability – accountable to elected officials and other judges
• Member of legislatures can impeach a judge
• Upper courts can strike down lower courts’ arguments
o Voters choose elected officials, who then hold judges accountable
▪ In reference to the principal-agent problem, elected officials would know more
about law and policy that would help them monitor the judges more than the
general public (idea of information asymmetry)
o Direct accountability = Public has a role in the deciding of judges
▪ Role-based accountability – ability to perform role (impartiality)
• Voters evaluate judges based on how well they can perform the role of a
judge, how impartial they are
▪ Result-based accountability – specific decisions and policies
• Judges should be responsive to people and thus, voters should assess a judge
based on their decisions/positions
Causality and campaign donations
o Strategic donations
▪ Judges vote with contributors 70% of the time
▪ Can be problematic because we may think the judge votes in favor of certain
businesses or people because they have contributed to their campaign
▪ But contributors may also be predisposed to contribute to judges who already agree
with them
o Judges have little control over cases
▪ So, it’s hard for the public to assess whether judge voted a certain way because of
circumstances or because of self-interest
Contestation
o Ex: 150 out of 151 judges run unopposed in LA County
o We need opposition
o State Supreme Court races
▪ Higher rate of opposition in partisan races
▪ Judges contested in majority of races, but not all
o Trial court judges = trial courts are closer to the public
▪ Majority are not contested
▪ Less than 30% on average
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Judicial elections originated from reform aimed at public accountability. 150 out of 151 judges in la county running unopposed. Problem with judicial elections today advertisements and campaigns. Judicial attack ads judges have to pay attention to the public response to their judgments (the just decision may not be popular) Independence v. accountability: voters choose elected officials, who then hold judges accountable, with the criterion of independence, we also want indirect accountability, member of legislatures can impeach a judge. In reference to the principal-agent problem, elected officials would know more about law and policy that would help them monitor the judges more than the general public (idea of information asymmetry) Judges should be responsive to people and thus, voters should assess a judge based on their decisions/positions judge, how impartial they are: direct accountability = public has a role in the deciding of judges. Causality and campaign donations: strategic donations.