Question

Judges in the State and Federal Courts of Indiana are usually either elected by voters, appointed by the President, or selected by a panel of other attorneys and judges depending upon which court has a vacancy.

Elected Judges are answerable to the people they serve. They are forced to have more interaction with everyday people due to the need to gather votes. Elected Judges are also not always experts in their field, as the minimum qualification to be a Judge is that you are admitted to practice law in the State of Indiana. Therefore, it is possible that an attorney well versed in civil law could run and be elected to a court that only handles major criminal felony cases. Elected Judges typically must seek re-election every four to six years.

Appointed Judges typically have some sort of political connection that raises them to the level of being considered for the position. They are appointed for life to avoid any undue influence of the need to raise money and gather votes. The life appointment also eliminates the influence a president or congress could impose on the Appointed Judge. Appointed Judges are expected to make a career commitment to the bench and to become experts in various areas of law. It is also possible the appointment process can result in someone with a great amount of political clout, but little legal experience, being appointed to the bench. The Senate Confirmation process serves to diminish this possibility.

Panel Judge appointments, like bankruptcy judges, tax judge, and immigration judge, are considered to be experts in their field and selected by a group of their peers. Federal Panel Judge appointments usually last fourteen years. The political process and election have virtually nothing to do with the selection of these judges; therefore, voters have little recourse if they do not like a particular judge.

1. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having appointed, versus elected, judges, and vice versa. I would like the answers you give to be from your own personal experience and/or perception of our judicial system. Please also discuss your preference for how judges should be selected.

Answer 1

Elected and appointed judges have their own advantages and disadvantages. Elected judges are answerable to people who elect them. Elected judges are easily approachable and available for common public. Election are fairly open and unbiased. Therefore, elected judges tend to work towards common welfare. These are some of the advantages of having elected judges. But some of these advantages act as two-edged sword. As elected judges have to maintain a good perception among common people, they tend to get biased by public opinion in some cases. This is not good for Judiciary as a judge needs to be independent and should be able to deliver judgement without any influence or bias. It is also commonly noted phenomenon that in election year elected judges tend to deliver judgement which are in line with popular opinion. Another issue with elected judges is that it might lead to selection of judges with very little legal knowledge as base criteria and standards are not set high enough. These are some of the disadvantages of having elected judges.

Appointed judges are generally appointed for life or long tenures. Therefore, there is no undue influence on them. They can provide judgement without bias. Their post and tenure also prevents them from any behind the scene influences and pressure. This provides them an opportunity to give judgement in an unbiased and free manner. These are some of the advantages of having appointed judges. But, at the same time the process of appointment of judges itself is mired in controversies. A number of times these appointments are politically motivated. Sometimes people with political connection and very less legal knowledge also get appointed to the bench. These judges tend to deliver judgement favoring their political backers. These are some of the disadvantages of having appointed judges.

In my opinion, selection of judges should be made through a mixed process of appointment and election as followed in many countries across the globe. This reduces chances of incompetent people becoming judges. The process can involve both appointment as well as election stages. Legal luminaries and experts can submit a list of names of potential judges. Then these judges can undergo and election process where by people will have a right to vote for them. After the voting process the winner can be appointed as new judge. This will remove any undue bias and political patronage. It will also ensure that only completed people become judges. Therefore, in my opinion this is one of the process that can be undertaken for selection of judges in a judicial system.