As election day draws closer, judicial races are heating up all over Kentucky.
My approach to such races has been to pick the more conservative candidate -- so far as I could determine -- and hope for the best. Higher court justices often come up through the ranks, so it stands to reason that sober district court judges are necessary if we are to have good appellate justices down the road.
I've seen a few efforts to improve voter knowledge for judicial elections, but generally they range from the mundane to the absurd.
The Kentucky Judicial Campaign Conduct Committee is at least bipartisan. But their website, if you read it, offers precious little other than finger-wagging about avoiding conflicts and ignoring voters.
Voters should choose candidates on the basis of their complete records, and remember that the best judges are those who aren’t afraid to make decisions that might be unpopular. The judges’ code of conduct says “a judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.” The public doesn’t need, and shouldn’t want, judges who make decisions with the next election in mind.
Seriously, what does any of this mean? Interestingly, I found most of the above passage attributed to Al Cross in a Richmond Register news story. Al is out of pocket today, but I will try to get some comment from him about which unpopular decisions we want our judges to embrace and which partisan interests we want them to reject. If we are supposed to pick judges who make decisions we don't like, why are we bothering to have elections?
