The election of judges should not be a partisan election, as are other offices. Unlike other elected officials, judges are limited in the scope of their jobs to the application of the law to those cases which come before them. Unlike police officers, who can decide when to ticket or arrest and when to look the other way, a judge must act on every matter that comes before him or her. This action, which consists of determining, interpreting, and applying the laws - is not ever intended to be a function of partisan politics. Each party who appears before a judge has the constitutionally protected right to be seen as classless, genderless, raceless, ageless and without any social or political affiliations. If a judge is elected by his/her political party, that judge cannot help but feel obligations - or at least commitment to - the goals and beliefs of that party, if not necessarily to the individual movers and shakers within the party. .
Unlike other offices, judges must be lawyers. They should campaign on and be elected or defeated by virtue of their record and ability in that field, not by their ability to gain partisan support and bring in political "machines" to build support on party lines. Judges should not be influenced by personal interests or relationships, the identity or status of the parties to a case, or external economic or political pressures. Judges are bound to apply the steady hand of the rule of law and therefore are able to act without concern for the day-to-day whims of politics and public opinion. They must always act on the basis of what is just, not just what is popular.
Like politicians, judges facing election must raise increasingly large sums of money to run campaigns. It is the responsibility of each candidate to ensure that the public knows their record and qualifications. But most individuals cannot afford to mount the kind of campaign that is necessary to publicize their records without the support of a special interest group.
