[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Should Judges Be Elected By Popular Vote or Appointed?
The dilemma of whether to elect or appoint judges have had a long and disorderly history. Three times in the last 20 years the voters of the state have been asked to vote on legitimate proposals altering the judicial selection process. And the debate isn't over. There are more than a few proposals currently before the Illinois General Assembly which, if enacted, would change the selection method. Proponents of the present elective system are fighting to keep the public directly involved in choosing their judges.
Opponents of this method have proposed that judges be selected by a merit plan in which a commission nominates candidates and presents a list for executive appointment. The issue of judicial selection cuts to the very heart of our national democratic tradition. On one hand, there is recognition that justice must be administered impartially. Judges must be selected for the reason that of their ability as jurists, not simply because of their political affiliations. A judge in deciding a case must be governed by principles of law and the merits of the litigant's case, not the litigant's political position. On the other hand, under our common law tradition, judges, for the most part appellate judges, decide cases which become law. Judges are given immense power in this country — power to interpret statutes, review administrative decisions and declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional.
The fact that judges often decide issues of tremendous significance to the general public means that the public must retain some control over the judiciary. Actually voting for judges is one means by which the public can exercise this control.The source of the assortment difficulty stems from the conviction that it is possible to part law from politics. Law is related to politics as trees are to a forest. It is possible to separate the two, but the result is a pile of dead wood and a barren field......
