Is a real campaign the best way to an impartial judiciary?

What's more important? Knowing the judge you present your case to is an impartial witness to the evidence brought before her? Or knowing which political endorsements she has and what her opinion is on issues like Roe v. Wade? I'd suggest that the typical mudslinging, partisan election is inappropriate for judicial campaigns.

Example number one. In recent elections in Illinois, a state Supreme Court election cost the two candidates a combined $9.3 million. In the last contested race for the Supreme Court in Minnesota, the two candidates spent $37,000. When money becomes more important in politics, so will the people who have it. Justice should be impartial to wealth. Electing judges with full-blown campaigns could compromise that.

Point number two. Supporters of partisan and hard-fought judicial races have no appreciation for the fact that the kinds of information aired in a campaign would have little to do with competence on the bench. Traditional political campaigns are filled with issue positions that get boiled down into character attacks (your tax policy means you hate America!). I fail to see how having that kind of illumination on Election Day will get us better judges.

The Minnesota man who brought forth the lawsuit challenging the state's regulation of judicial races argues that folks who fear real campaigns "fear democracy." Judging by the election of George W. Bush, the hoopla over gubernatorial recall and referenda in California, etc, I'd say that people should have a healthy fear of democracy. Fareed Zakaria, in his book The Future of Freedom, notes that sometimes more direct democracy just asks for trouble. His assessment of California's trouble of popular legislation mirrors his assessment of problems in Third World countries. They both struggle with what he terms illiberal democracy - a tendency to let democracy trump rule of constitutional law.

While the people might be the source of laws in democracy (indirectly), no one is above it. We need well qualified people on the bench to enforce and interpret our laws, not just good campaigners.