HB 464 and HB 595

     HB 464 proposed to attach party affiliation to a judicial candidate’s name and HB 595 proposed to provide for the partisan nomination and election of supreme court justices. Both bills would have inserted party partisanship into judicial elections. I voted against these two bills because judicial partisanship destroys judicial impartiality and erodes judicial legitimacy, which adversely affects the fundamental principles of the separation of powers, rule of law and judicial independence.

     In an oversimplification, the three branches of government are often described in this way: the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. Legislators and executive officers act, and are expected to act, in their official capacity based on their political party affiliations; not so for the judicial branch. Judges are expected, and many of them do, interpret the law based on nonpartisan methods of jurisprudence. Of course, that is not always the case but to make judicial campaigns more partisan by attaching party affiliation to a candidate’s name or by providing for the partisan nomination and election of supreme court justices will not make judges and justices less partisan in their judicial decisions. The opposite effect is more likely.

     Judicial partisanship destroys judicial impartiality. Justice is supposed to be impartial. Justice is blind, right? Everybody – lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants – who goes before a judge should feel that they have been treated fairly and justly. But knowledge of a judge’s party affiliation makes it more likely that somebody who feels that they were treated unfairly or unjustly in the courtroom will blame the judge’s partisanship. 

     Judicial partisanship also erodes judicial legitimacy. There is a reason why courthouses are usually impressive buildings, why judges wear robes and sit higher than anybody else in the courtroom, and why everybody has to stand up when the judge enters. It is supposed to bestow legitimacy on the judicial proceedings and the decisions of the judge. It is supposed to make it more likely that both the participants and the spectators recognize, accept, and obey the authority of the court. Knowledge of a judge’s party affiliation and the resulting possible bias makes this bestowal of legitimacy less likely. 

     If the intent of the bill is to provide more information to voters on the qualifications of judicial candidates, party affiliation is a poor way to do it.