Too Much Democracy is Like Too Much Ice Cream

The Washington Post had a front page story on Sunday about the dumbest aspect of our American democratic system: judicial elections. Don't get me wrong, I believe going to the polls on Election Day is an almost spiritual experience. But it is possible to have too much of a good thing, especially when it comes to democracy.

Twenty-one states have direct elections for state judges. Some are partisan, some aren't. But all of them are getting out of control. So far the candidates for Supreme Court in PA have collected over $5 million. In 2006, the race for Illinois Supreme Court cost more money than 18 of the nation's 34 Senate races that year. And in 2004, the race for Chief Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court cost $8.2 million.

Who is footing the bill for these extravagant campaigns? Yep, you guessed it: big business interests. The National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce raised millions of dollars in its quest for tort reform.

But that's not the reason why judicial elections are a supremely stupid idea. The reason is that judges are not supposed to behave as political actors. They are government officials who review facts and evidence to produce an unbiased ruling. How are you supposed to be unbiased when you make campaign pledges to the voters, such as: "I'm pro-life. Abortion on demand is a tragedy. And the liberal judicial decisions that support it are wrong." (Actual quote from former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice.)

Judges should not be able to make campaign pledges to the voters in the same way that Hoover promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. That's not what judges do. And besides, we can barely get the American people to pay enough attention to politics to know the names of the presidential candidates, much less what they stand for. How do you expect them to be familiar enough with incredibly long and complex record of judges to be able to support them with an informed ballot?

And let's not forget about negative campaigning, the political tactic du jour. One candidate for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been labeled "the drug dealer's choice for Supreme Court." Somehow, I doubt that this is an appeal for support from the Association of Crack Dealers, Local 341. (Although to be fair, the A.C.D. Local 620 in Washington D.C.. is responsible for Marion Barry's entire political career. Beware of Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Big Crack.)

PLEASE, leave the name calling of judges to trained professionals, such as yours truly. And you know what? As much as I dislike Justice Scalia, America is better off with him having life tenure than a national election for Supreme Court. The Constitution is supposed to be more permanent than legislative politics. It needs judges that are insulated from public opinion if it is to preserve the Constitution. If we had a national election for Supreme Court, Brown v. Board would have been overturned in six months.

The American judicial system deserves better than to be relegated to the superficial, rough-and-tumble arena of electoral politics.