Why Judges & Politics Don't Mix

At the core, the problem is this: Judges are different from other elected officials. When we elect other officials, we want to know what their political views are. We elect the executive and legislative branches to implement those political views. We do not want judges to have a political platform. We want them to apply the law, whether or not it is consistent with their personal views.

Many times judges must issue decisions they do not personally agree with. Because that is the standard we hold judges to – to rule based on the law as it has developed not based on personal views. How can we hold judges to that standard on the one hand, and on the other hand elect judges based on their personal opinions?

That’s what it means to say we are a nation of laws, not men (and women!)

Some may say, “What’s the harm in hearing what judicial candidates think?” There is a harm. What is at risk is a standard, a precious ideal we hold our judges to. We are concerned about two effects: the effect on the electorate, and the effect on the judges themselves.

First, encouraging candidates to express their personal views will reinforce an idea that judges make decisions based on those personal views and not based on the law. That will begin to change how the public sees the judges. The public’s trust in the fairness and impartiality of the judges will begin to erode. And that trust in the fairness of the judiciary is the source of the courts’ legitimate power. The courts do not have their own armies. They rely for their legitimacy on the faith of the people in their fairness. Here in Minnesota, the people have a high degree of faith in the courts. Once that is diminished, it will be difficult to regain.

The second problem when judicial candidates start stating their personal views is the effect on the judges themselves. How will judges -- who are after all human -- approach their jobs if politics are part of the equation. Will they be afraid to make an unpopular decision? Will a judge who was elected after taking a political position be able to approach related cases independently? Will that judge feel – perhaps subtly – that he or she has made a commitment to decide cases in a predetermined way? The rule of law would be undermined.

Another big problem: Money

Money is another big concern. As politics enters the equation, money will flow in. In Minnesota, our judicial races have been low-buck affairs. In Minnesota, a district court candidate spent $50,000 for a district court race in Hennepin County in 1996. That broke prior records. Most spent much less. $3000. $5000. Maybe $10,000. The most spent on a statewide judicial race was about $300,000 in 2000.

In states that have allowed political elections all along, the price tag was much more. For example, more than 9 million dollars was spent on one race for Supreme Court in Illinois in 2004. More than 8 million dollars was spent for one seat in Alabama in 2006. Almost 6 million dollars was spent for one race in Wisconsin in 2007. Most of this money was spent for TV advertising.

Why are people donating money in these amounts? Do they expect something in return? And what is the public perception? What is the impact on the judges themselves and on the public’s faith in the system?