UNCONTESTED and UNACCOUNTABLE? RATES of CONTESTATION in TRIAL COURT ELECTIONS

By Nelson, Michael J. | Judicature, March/April 2011 | Go to article overview

UNCONTESTED and UNACCOUNTABLE? RATES of CONTESTATION in TRIAL COURT ELECTIONS


Nelson, Michael J., Judicature


Although electoral competition is an important indicator of the ability of judicial elections to promote judicial accountability, a study of trial court elections in 29 states found that over three-quarters of elections fail to provide voters the opportunity to make a choice in the voting booth.

The empirical literature onjudicial accountability has focused almost exclusively on appellate courts.1 While state appellate courts play a crucial role reviewing trial court decisions, setting precedent, and interpreting law, their ranks represent less than 5 percent of the number of autho rized judgeships.2 Though they typically do not make precedent and are ostensibly bound by the ridings of higher courts, trial court judges exercise immense discretion.3 Decisions made by appellate judges have important effects on citizens, but trial courts are typically citizens' first, and often only, direct interaction with the judicial branch. Trial court judges determine the amounts of child or spousal support that must be paid in a divorce settlement and who must pay it, set bail when a suspect is arraigned, and, in many instances, determine the length and type of sentence for a convicted defendant.

Moreover, judicial selection reform efforts in recent years have targeted trial courts. The November 2008 ballot contained attempts to change methods of judicial selection on the general jurisdiction trial courts in counties in Kansas and Missouri.4 In 2009, the governor of Indiana vetoed legislation that would have changed the selection method for the St. Joseph County Superior Court from merit selection to contestable elections.5 In the 2010 general election, a Change in the state's judicial selection system for both trial and appellate court judges was rejected by Nevada voters.6 The sheer number of trial court judges, die important role diese individuals play in citizens' interactions with the judiciary, and recent efforts to change trial court selection mechanisms make it imperative to build an improved understanding of judicial selection and retention mechanisms at the trial court level.

This study examines general and primary electoral contests in the 29 states that used contestable elections to select and retain judges for general jurisdiction trial courts in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008.7 The dataset includes 10,890 trial court elections. After exploring various conceptions of judicial accountability, it assesses the ability of general jurisdiction trial court elections to promote the type of accountability often touted by proponents of contes table judicial elections.

Additionally, this article provides the first comprehensive examination of trial court elections to acknowledge the effects of electoral rules on the measurement of contestation rates. The results indicate that over 75 percent of contestable judicial elections used to fill seats on general jurisdiction trial courts are uncontested. These results call into question arguments made by proponents of judicial elections and suggest that future research should explore the similarities and differences between trial and appellate court elections.

Parsing judicial accountability

Much of the judicial selection discourse has been framed as a debate over the definition of judicial accountability. As one prominent reform advocate has written, "ITJf courts and tiiose who care about them can learn to make accountability their friend and define judicial accountability properly before the other side corrupts it, they'll go a long way toward turning back the onslaught of attacks on the independence and impartiality of our courts."8 As this statement suggests, court commentators generally agree that some form of judicial accountability is desirable, but they disagree about which definitions of accountability are "proper" and which are "corrupt." As a result, judicial accountability has become, in the words of retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "misunderstood at best and abused at worst. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

UNCONTESTED and UNACCOUNTABLE? RATES of CONTESTATION in TRIAL COURT ELECTIONS
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.