The selection of state court judges in the United States has been the subject of vigorous debate. The controversy continues to build as some scholars contend that only the appointment of judges ensures the independence of the judiciary by insulating the judge from retaliation for unpopular decisions. Yet volumes of evidence unfold each day to reveal a judiciary under attack for making legal albeit unpopular decisions. While the cloak of a lifetime appointment with no effective method of removal does little to instill confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, an election riddled with partisan rhetoric or one-sided attacks is no panacea for instilling trust. This state of affairs can be best described as “learning to live within the cesspool that has been created” in a system that requires judges to stand for election, yet avoid the improprieties of campaign misconduct.
Caufield, Rachel Paine
"In the Wake of White: How States are Responding to Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and How Judicial Elections are Changing,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 38
, Article 5.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol38/iss3/5