| Subject: Re: [EL] Query about judicial "representativeness" |
| From: Roy Schotland |
| Date: 2/1/2011, 10:46 AM |
| To: Dan Meek <dan@meek.net>, Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
Oregon’s assignment of special duties to the trial courts in state capitol, is not unusual tho I’ve never seen any list of such States --do any of you know of a lis, or specific States like this, or anything related to it? I believe Missouri is or has been one such, New York another: back when D’Amato was NY’s Senator and had pots full of campaign funds, one year he put major amounts into three campaigns for trial judges in Albany….
Roy A. Schotland
Professor Emeritus
Georgetown Law Center
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
202/662-9098
fax: -9680
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Meek
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:44 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Query about judicial "representativeness"
In Oregon, trial court judges are elected on a county-by-county basis. Many Oregon statutes assign special duties for reviewing legislation and/or certain state agency actions to the trial court for the county (Marion) where the capitol (Salem) is located. Marion County is home to fewer than 10% of Oregon residents. Thus, trial court judges elected by less than 10% of the Oregon electorate are assigned by state law to take statewide actions that no other trial court judges can take.
Is there a legally cognizable problem here?