Comments on: Voters Should Select Judges

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 27 May 2007 02:10:01 +0000

Sorry. I incorrectly interpreted her comments as being backed by your comments. A process that provides appointment after close scrutiny by a group specifically given that responsibility very well might work better.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 26 May 2007 02:00:23 +0000

Unlike the direct election of a judge, selection of a jury follows a process that weeds out those who would not be fair, have a prejudice, have made up their minds on issues, etc. The suggestion of the Guardian that the general public should elect a judge because they can sit on a jury doesn’t seem like an exact parallel or justification to me.

EDITOR NOTE–Your logic is flawed dear friend. Justice Trout, not I, questioned the ability of the public to be knowledgable enough to select a judge.

The public is no more knowledgable to retain an appointed judge. The GUARDIAN has suggested an elected panel of 3 citizens to include 1 attorney from each judicial district to sit on the judicial council which now has 1 judge, 3 lawyers and 3 politicos to select lawyers to be judges. Insider trading at best–the general public is voiceless.

By: Chester

Chester — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:46:45 +0000

I read those comments this morning and they made me think that maybe she was a little elitist and condescending.

But I thought about it for a few and I see that I’m not alone when I say that they are somewhat true. How do you know which way a judge thinks? We seldom are presented with a record of decisions. Much like our mayor, you can get elected on name recogntion alone. Perhaps it might be best if the Governor made the choice…. I do think there should be some input from citizens at large, but when you get stuck with a bad judge, bad things can happen………

By: Gordon

Gordon — Fri, 25 May 2007 18:07:58 +0000

While I generally favor a public vote on *everything* (How about president, developments, etc.), I have mixed emotions on this one.
I try to follow court cases more carefully than a lot of people do, just because I find them fascinating, but still have very little knowledge about many of the judges out there who might be considered for the highest court.
I don’t think we want to turn the judicial selection process into a beauty pageant or a who-can-tell-the-biggest-lies competition, as too many other elections have become. (Hi, I’m judge Joe Glick. Vote for me for justice, and I’ll lock up everybody you don’t like and solve all your other problems, too.)
So the big question is: How can the media (our eye and ears out there) better inform the public about each judge, how fairly he or she handles cases, or whatever?

By: RiverCity

RiverCity — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:24:13 +0000

I have to agree that the average citizen would not know a good judge on a ballot ticket, I usually don’t and I keep up fairly well with politics.

I don’t think comparing being on a jury to selecting a judge is a fair comparison. I can sit on a jury, listen to the arguments, discuss the facts with my fellow jurors and then make an educated decision. Just because I can make a reasoned decision based on the facts doesn’t mean I can pick a good judge when I don’t really know anything about them.

By: James Bond

James Bond — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:07:06 +0000

I believe the Judicial Council should be appointed by the Governor and/or Legislature. Electing them would also be something I could support. I also believe the Governor has a constitutional right to appoint any qualified candidate outside of the list submitted by the Judicial Council.

I have long been repulsed and offended by how insular and arrogant the Idaho State Bar and judiciary is towards the public. They are truly Ivory Tower types who think non-attorneys are too stupid to know how to vote. I also believe there are a number of good judges and lawyers who are cowed by their leadership into not saying anything publicly that does not further the party line.

By: Sisyphus

Sisyphus — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:45:13 +0000

I find it ironic that Justice Trout would dis the very electorate that saw through the nasty campaign tactics and re-elected her last time. The quote is unfortunate and politically unwise, displaying an elitism that tends to provide ammunition to the myriad groups that assail the judiciary out of ignorance and/or frustration. Its a slap in the face to Justice Eismann and other members of the judiciary that have their position through the electoral process.

It is also somewhat accurate. I’m often asked for whom to vote in judicial elections because I work in the Court system and these folks express often how they have no clue for whom to vote. I do subscribe to the notion of representative democracy allowing a few people who are paid to become informed and make selections based upon the best information available. I find that system to be more efficient and reliable than forcing the masses to make the decision based upon a series of 30 second sound bites.

By: Dog

Dog — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:40:57 +0000

I for one think Judge Linda has a point about the voters not knowing how to pick a good judge. Perhaps she was referring to the class acts the voters picked in Idaho for politicians. How about Bill Sali for Idaho Supreme Court Justice?