The different processes by which state judges are selected is an increasingly popular topic for discussion amongst legal scholars and practitioners. While many law review articles and discussions advocate for one method of judicial selection over the other, this article addresses one specific and significant concern with the elective method: campaign financing.2 As this article explains, campaign financing can impair judicial independence and inhibit fair and impartial decisions. Fortunately, the appointive system is insulated from the pressures and problems associated with campaign financing, a benefit which is all the more evident today when everyone, including judges, face difficult economic times. More importantly, however, because an appointive system does not involve campaign financing, judicial independence is best preserved in states like Maine where state judges are appointed, rather than elected.

Publication Title


Included in

Law Commons