Law from a legal assistant’s point of view, week 34: Electing judiciary officials
By Quinton Lister, legal assistant
I mentioned in a previous post that if I were to build my own legal system that I would make all judiciary officials publicly elected officials. However, I recognize there are pros and cons to electing judges.
PROS (as I see them):
- Having elected judges would increase the accountability judiciary officials have to the public. In Utah, we can vote to retain a judge, but we do not vote them into office, as they are appointed by the governor.
- Electing judges allows the people to have a greater voice in the justice system. What better way to ensure that the judges represent the people then allowing the people to elect the judges?
- A judge who is elected has more incentive to act in accordance with the voice of the people, especially if they face re-election. They cannot “rest on their laurels” so to speak.
CONS (as I see them):
- Elected judiciary officials are more susceptible to the influence of special interests. As is the case with any publicly elected official, big money can and will throw its funds behind the candidate they believe will represent their particular interests, even when those interest are contrary to the public interest.
- Publicly elected judiciary officials have more incentive to “legislate from the bench” to appease their constituents
- * Electing judges can result in inexperienced judges, if the same judge can’t get re-elected. Electing judges can result in a revolving door of new judges coming in and out of the judiciary each election cycle.
*This could be a potential pro in the eyes of some.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277