From the President: Jennifer’s ‘Andy Rooney’ on Elections

Why do we have judicial elections? It’s not as if people actually pay attention. I mean those of us in the profession do. We go to the candidate forums, we know the candidates, but who else does? Does your neighbor or your golf buddy? Do they even know that judges are something they vote on at the state and local level? You’d be surprised to find that several people I asked weren’t sure.

Sad to say, most people don’t realize the importance of a judge. They don’t realize that judges shape the law by defining and molding it through their decisions. Of those that do, are they looking further to determine the political and practical effects of rulings? The fact that we ask that question means we have failed to impart this importance on far too many people.

By the time a voter is at that point on the ballot, aren’t most of them voting based on party? Then they get to the judicial races. Nonpartisan, little name recognition, so people rarely know what to do.

Then they see that “I.” How important is the incumbent thing? Most people have voted at one point or another based on the “I.” Why is that? Do we blindly believe that officials are doing a good job because we haven’t heard about some scandal or bad decision? So is it then fair to say we depend on controversy to set us straight?
And if there isn’t any, isn’t our natural reaction to assume they are doing just fine? But what does that say about us?

On the other hand, isn’t this the year of the anti-incumbent? What will this mean in Georgia and for our judicial candidates? Will it reach that far on the ballot where people are speculating about a judge’s party?

And what about when it’s an open race? Ideally, this is the perfect equation. Candidates get out there and touch voters, get their message across. More voters may pay attention and votes would be based on the individual candidates, not whether they have that “I,” or whether there is an “R” or “D” next to their name.

I don’t know about you, but if someone told me they voted for a candidate because they were at the top of the ballot, I would think they were joking. But oddly enough, in Georgia, the candidate that comes first in the alphabet traditionally gets a bump of a few percentage points. Really? How is that possible? Aren’t we the “educated” electorate? Isn’t that the point of our democratic process?

And if candidates are elected for inconsequential reasons, then would it be better to have someone appoint? Why is it that we elect versus appoint? Why appoint some but not others? Who should have the power to appoint?

Would the power to appoint cause people to learn more about their gubernatorial races or would it just increase the importance of those races to those who stand to benefit?

And what about the conspiracy rumors that candidates are planted in races to siphon off votes? Does this really happen? Are we to believe that candidates conspire to shift votes and take falls for one another? That sounds odd to me when considering how expensive and physically draining a campaign can be. Why would someone agree to do that? What would that candidate stand to benefit?

Why are only the judicial offices non-partisan? What about other officials like the district attorney or sheriff? Should they really have a partisan label? They are constitutional officers dedicated to enforcing the law and protecting the safety of citizens, not politicians who would succumb to partisan or ideological pressures.

After all these musings – perhaps it is an imperfect system. But isn’t it still the best? People widely agree that it is. And what does that say?