Elected Judges: Extremely Bad Idea

I just got done reading The Appeal by John Grisham. I hate to spoil it but it brings up a great point about our state judicial system. In the book, a corporation gets sued for basically dumping in a river harmful waste that causes a cancer epidemic. They get sued and loose, but they then appeal, and when elections come along they rig it to get a judge elected that will hand the court case over to corporation. The novel shows that with elected judges (combined with an endless appeal system) courts can be corrupted by the people and loose its ability to be impartial and independent.

With elected judges, they now have to bend to the will of people or reflect the opinions of their constituents which destroys objectivity in the courtroom. This practice is still being used today in some form in 39 states. It is especially prevalent in rural areas. I strongly argue for Federalist 78. Right now records are being broken in money spent on judicial elections. This is especially becoming more prevalent in a 2002 Supreme Court decision allowing judges to speak more freely about their beliefs. There is even correlation between Jim Crow and prejudice being the norm in courts, and elected Judges. I would like to point to another John Grisham book, A Time to Kill. In that book the Judge is influenced by an ambitious district attorney into giving him the upper hand in the court case, in order to give a quasi innocent Black father no chance in a capital murder case.

I know I use Grisham a little to much in establishing a point, but he isn't a best selling author for nothing.