The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Corruption

Leaving out party affiliation and discouraging partisan campaigning will consequent a reduction in judicial corruption, partisan decision-making, and taking the sides of the wealthy that assure that the judges remain on the bench. A non-partisan election means that a candidate will not be listed with party affiliation. (1) This type of election allows for the top two candidates regardless of party affiliation to advance, instead of attempting to advance one candidate from each party. Candidates can declare what party they are affiliated with when they run, as a general right. Although, being a judge should be a non-partisan issue. Judges should keep their party affiliations out of their work.

As of 2017, only 13 states have adopted a nonpartisan

They also believed judicial independence was needed based on the colonial experience where governors often appointed friends to the bench no matter the person’s qualifications.” Associate Professor Matthew J. Streb of Northern Illinois University. (3)

Some may argue that party affiliation does not impact the highest court judges. Since

Supreme Court judges are nominated by a president and confirmed by the senate. Let it not escape the argument that the senate can be controlled completely by one party. Public trust in the judicial system needs to be common place to ensure a more successful union, partisanship in the judicial branch will waiver that trust. (3) Together with the consideration of alienating times in political history the “common man” will not trust a judicial branch that does not view them impartially.

“Since judges are supposed to be “above politics,” this reform was particularly popular regarding judicial selection. Nonpartisan judicial elections were perceived as a way to clean up corruption and cronyism in the judicial selection process while still keeping judges accountable to the people.”Associate Professor Matthew J. Streb of Northern Illinois University.

In a typical non-partisan campaign Issue campaigning is typical. That can be combatted by impartial media outlets that have the capacity to research a judge’s past decisions and career for the public. In 2017 it is not that difficult to dig up someone’s past, especially if it's archived, like court cases.

Nonpartisan campaigns do not attract as much funding as partisan campaigns do. (4) leaving any publicity the judiciary receives to be in the hands of impartial (and partial) media, since judges have little funding to advertise, their advertisements will become small scale and down to introductions. This allows the majority of voters, who do not understand how partisanship can play a role on decisions on the bench,(5) the chance to vote for a person not a party. Mean spirited campaign wars only distract from the judges achievements or mistakes as a public servant. To continue to allow partisan judicial campaigns is to allow a growing intent-to- injure of the accountability system of the very democracy these judges are elected to