In less than two months, there is going to be an election. On the ballot will be a number of judge positions. Beside each candidate’s name will be an R or a D signifying whether the person running is a Republican or a Democrat. The vast majority of citizens do not know who their judges are. Not knowing the judges, the fallback position is to just vote for the R or the D. It is my strong opinion that judicial races should be non-partisan. A voter should not cast a vote for a judge candidate just because of party affiliation.
I was active in the legal profession for over a half century. Twenty-four years of that was as a Superior Court judge. During my time, I developed some judicial philosophies as to what makes a good judge.
First and foremost, a judge needs to face the reality that he or she is not the star of the show. If you are a judge, you are an umpire – a referee. If there are stars in a trial, it is the lawyers trying to present their client’s case in the best light possible. The role of the judge is to enforce the rules – applying them equally to all parties and keep order so the trial is not influenced by anything other than facts and the law.
Next, a judge cannot let his or her personal beliefs override the law. I have heard judges say, “I don’t care what the law is, I have to do what is right.” Most often, the context is when their religious beliefs conflict with the law. I respond with something like this: “When you became a judge, you put your right hand on the Bible, raised your left hand, and solemnly swore to God that you would follow and uphold the law. Now you are telling me you disregard that solemn oath and do what you think. Which is the greater sin, violating your oath to God or carrying out what you believe to be an unjust law?”
As an example, take the issue of abortion. A proper question for a candidate running for a legislative type office is: “What is your stance on abortion?” A proper question for a judicial candidate is: “Can you put aside your personal beliefs about abortion and apply the law, even if you disagree with it, in any case you hear that abortion is an issue?” The same principle applies to death penalty cases and other like cases. For a judge, it should be the law that determines, not personal beliefs.
Another time I will share more of my judicial philosophy, but for now, let me suggest in this election, do not vote for an R or a D. No, don’t vote ignorant. Before you go to the polls, find out who is running for judges’ offices. If you do not know them, call a lawyer, call someone who works in the courthouse, and ask if they have a recommendation. If the candidate is already a judge, ask if they apply the law evenly, whether they let their personal beliefs enter into their rulings, how they treat people in the courtroom, especially court personnel, and whether they are respectful of jurors’ time and so forth. If they are not already a judge, ask why they would be better than the judge they are trying to unseat.
Judges are engaged in serious business. When we talk about courts, we use high-sounding terms such as “Justice-the Rule of Law – Precedent –and so on. However, the most important term when talking about court should be PEOPLE —court is about people, their lives, their freedom, their rights; the way judges carry out their duties affects all of these.