Re: [EL] more news II 11/1/10

Well, in a democratic system there is no perfect solution because The People rule, and people are not perfect. Are jurors really so pro-law-and-order that due process suffers? O.J. Simpson has seen both sides of that equation; I was reading a report just today about the growing tendency of New York City juries to let celebrities off the hook on criminal charges, similar to Los Angeles/Santa Barbara area juries. How does that help due process rights....of victims.

Rose Bird was soft on crime. The stats prove that. And because California offers it's citizens the right to reject a Supreme Court judge after so many years of service, it should come as little surprise to election lawyers that Rose Bird's performance in office animated the question of whether she should be retained in the election. How else are voters to interpret their voting rights? On her "good attendance" at hearings alone?

Our system is such that Federal judges are appointed; and some state judges are handled differently and elected or subject to retention elections consistent with the concepts of Federalism and state's rights embodied in the Constitution. All that is OK in a Federal democratic Republic. Justice may not be perfect but as stated in that well-worn chestnut, our system " is better than any of the other alternatives."

James V. Lacy

Sent from my iPhone

Confidentiality applies

On Nov 1, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote:

Unfortunately what we have seen is rejection on other grounds than noncompliance with constitutions. The classic example was the nonretention of Justice Rose Bird in California, because it was perceived that she was "soft on crime" for her death penalty rulings. We see a consistent pattern of voters voting for or against judges and prosecutors depending on whether they promise to be "tough on crime", regardless of what that might mean to due process. We also see the attitude among too many jurors: "Convict 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

We don't get constitutional justice by elections, and we don't get it from appointments. No one can be trusted to select the people who make judicial or other decisions. Not officials and not the people. It is time to try something else.

On 11/01/2010 09:54 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

in many states, we do have such a system.  And I see no reason why the people of the state, in whose name the state constitution is created, can't act to remove their servants based on those servants' highly contestable interpretations of that state's constitution.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law