I'm thinking that there was one time a judge lost a retention vote. I think it was one of the group that took money from the Roofers Union. Which I suppose only reinforces your point. A related problem is that it is coincidental when good judges are elected to state court, because it is money and party backing that is decisive, and voters have no good way to get information to compare judges qualifications. Which is why people like Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts has been trying to change to a system of appointed judges. They are sponsoring a forum this week as someone posted earlier.
In a message dated 4/1/2005 11:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Anthony West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >My personal recommendation -- as a former political editor who used to >specialize in Pennsylvania judicial politics, but also as a busy voter with >little time to research and decide about these individuals, about whom it is >impossible to learn much -- is as follows: > >Always vote NO on judicial retention. Every single judge, every single time. >NO. > >The reasoning is that the cards are immeasurably stacked in favor of judges' >winning retention races. If any judge has EVER been defeated for retention, I >can't remember it. So if you vote NO on retaining a judge who happens, >unbeknownst to you, to be great -- relax, it won't hurt him. The only way your >NO vote could actually have an impact on a race would be if a judge were so >outstandingly abominable that he had actually overwhelmed voter apathy and >ignorance with his awfulness. If yours was the deciding vote that pushed such >a clod off the bench -- well, it probably would be a good thing. > >So from now on, make your voting task easier. Just say NO to judges. It's the >right thing to do. > >-- Tony West > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
