|
Phil Power (column, "Justice should
be nonpartisan," Feb. 13) recently made some strong arguments
regarding judicial elections — who, after all, could disagree
that Michigan justices should be fair and impartial? — but
unfortunately, his flawed diagnosis of the problem leads to the
flawed prescription of suggesting state taxpayers should fund
judicial campaigns.
Power suggests that campaign contributions influence judicial
decisions, but he has it exactly backwards. Every judge brings a
certain philosophy to the bench that will guide his or her
rulings. The purpose of judicial elections is to allow that
philosophy to become clear to voters — and, as it does, that
philosophy drives contributions from like-minded citizens.
For example, advocacy groups that believe judges should use
judicial decisions to achieve a desired political outcome are
more likely to contribute to Justice Michael Cavanaugh or
Justice Marilyn Kelly. Voters who believe judges should
interpret the law, not legislate from the bench, are more
inclined to contribute to others on the court.
While I might disagree with their decisions, it would be
outrageous to suggest that Justice Cavanaugh or Justice Kelly
bases his or her decisions on the source of his or her campaign
contributions. I've been involved in Michigan politics for more
than 30 years, and I have never seen anyone come forward with a
credible example showing a link between any judicial ruling and
any contribution. That's because a link doesn't exist.
That same level of integrity, however, cannot be claimed by
organizations that profess support for ideals like impartial
justice, but in reality are heavily funded special interests
pushing a decidedly secret political agenda.
The ultra-left-wing Open Society Institute, the political tool
of hedge fund billionaire George Soros, finances the National
Institute on Money in State Politics, which Power cites. The
Michigan Campaign Finance Network, also cited by Power, is a
"campaign partner" of another Soros-backed special interest
called Justice at Stake.
Strip away the nonpartisan pretenses of these organizations, and
what's the cause of publicly financed judicial elections really
about? The entire campaign is based on a deep distrust of
citizen involvement in judicial elections.
In Minnesota and elsewhere, similar groups — also funded by Open
Society — are actually campaigning to abolish the democratic
election of judges and have trial lawyers decide who should sit
on the bench.
Doubtless, this is the next step they have in mind for Michigan,
once private fundraising has been abolished.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of
government — except for all the others. The same might also be
said about private financing of judicial elections — it has its
flaws, but it's the best way of ensuring that citizens stay
engaged in the judicial selection process and it preserves their
ability to hold judges accountable for their rulings.
Judges, after all, are not infallible and they are prone to
error or even abuse of power, just like other officeholders. And
the more insulated our courts are from voters, the more
unpredictable and capricious their rulings become.
Like Power, I agree that judges must remain independent, and
truly impartial in every case at hand. No one wants judicial
candidates handing out promises on how they would vote on
specific cases. But voters are entitled to know what principles
and philosophy a judicial candidate will bring to the bench —
and to support those candidates who share their views.
Note:
Pero is a former member of the Michigan Judicial Tenure
Commission and president of the American Justice Partnership.
|
