Judicial Elections Should Be About Qualifications, Not Negativity

Opinion

Photo Courtesy of electjudgecolbysmith-hynes.com/

As voters prepare to choose who will serve on the bench, it is important to remember that judicial elections are unlike any other election. Judges are not legislators. They are not executives. They do not make policy, represent political interests, or advocate for a particular agenda. Their role is to fairly apply the law, protect constitutional rights, and ensure equal justice for every person who enters the courtroom.

Because of this unique role, judicial campaigns should be conducted differently than traditional political campaigns.

Unfortunately, in today’s political climate, there is often pressure to import the tactics of partisan political campaigns into judicial races. Negative advertisements, personal attacks, and efforts to undermine an opponent’s character may be common in other elections, but they carry unique risks when used in campaigns for judicial office.

The first victim of a negative judicial campaign is often public confidence in the courts themselves. When judicial candidates attack one another in ways that suggest corruption, bias, incompetence, or dishonesty, voters may begin to question not only the candidate being attacked, but the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. If every candidate for judge is portrayed as unethical or unfit, the public may reasonably wonder whether they can trust any judge to fairly decide their case.

That erosion of trust has consequences. Courts depend upon public confidence. Unlike the legislative or executive branches, the judiciary has no army, no police force, and no ability to enact laws. Its authority comes largely from the public’s belief that judges will act fairly, impartially, and according to the rule of law. When confidence in that impartiality is weakened, the foundation of our justice system is weakened as well.

Negative judicial campaigns can also harm the candidate who chooses to engage in them. Voters often expect judicial candidates to demonstrate the temperament they would bring to the bench. Judges are expected to be patient, measured, respectful, and focused on facts rather than emotion. When a judicial candidate resorts to personal attacks or political-style mudslinging, voters may question whether that individual possesses the judicial temperament necessary to preside over difficult and often emotionally charged cases.

A courtroom requires impartiality. It requires listening before judging. It requires professionalism even when confronted with disagreement. Campaign conduct often provides voters with a preview of how a candidate may approach those responsibilities.

This does not mean judicial candidates should avoid discussing differences. Voters deserve meaningful information. Candidates should openly discuss their qualifications, legal experience, judicial philosophy, community involvement, courtroom experience, and record of service. They should explain why they are best prepared to handle the responsibilities of the office. Healthy debate about qualifications and experience strengthens the electoral process.

There is a significant difference, however, between contrasting qualifications and attacking character. One informs voters. The other often divides them.

At a time when public trust in many institutions is declining, judicial candidates have an opportunity—and a responsibility—to conduct themselves in a manner that strengthens confidence in the courts. Elections will come and go. Campaign signs will be removed. Advertisements will fade. But the public’s faith in the integrity of the judicial system must remain.

The judiciary functions best when judges are selected based on their qualifications, experience, temperament, and commitment to the rule of law—not on who can deliver the sharpest political attack.

Our courts deserve better. More importantly, the people of Jefferson County that we serve, deserve better.

Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Review.

The Jefferson Review welcomes opinion submissions from Jefferson County voices across the political and civic spectrum. Publication is not based on political viewpoint, and submissions are considered without prejudice toward party, ideology, or position. All opinion submissions must promote respectful public discourse and may be edited for clarity, length, grammar, and style. The Jefferson Review reserves the right to decline submissions that contain personal attacks, hate speech, knowingly false or misleading claims, defamatory or slanderous statements, vulgar language, or content that does not meet our editorial standards.