Various levels of accountability exist, though they are all diminished
with appointment processes. On the other end of the spectrum from
appointment to the federal bench, think of the appointment of a
registrar of elections by the very county supervisors who rely upon
that registrar's vote counts for their re-election, and who can recall
or fire the registrar of elections close to at will. At this other
end of the spectrum, a higher level of accountability exists to the
appointer, and direct accountability to the people had been
eliminated.
On 3/31/11, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
I'm not sure I'd agree that appointed officials are accountable to those who
appoint them, at least at the federal level where judges have lifetime
tenure. I can think of a few people who still gnash their teeth at the lack
of accountability Justice Souter faced from President George H.W. Bush.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Caperton rearing it's head in Wisconsin?
What many would call the accountability process of election (voting
someone in or out of elected positions based on past record or
perceived future actions) is what this article terms the "larger
scandal":
"the larger problem is the scandal of making a judge's election or
defeat turn on the way he or she decides - or might decide - a
particular case."
Elections make the elected accountable to the electorate, while
appointments make the appointed accountable to the appointers (and
potential impeachers, if applicable).
Recalling that New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres'
critique of the "evils" of judicial elections mentioned only the
typical burdens of elections like fundraising and so forth, it seems a
large part of the real debate here, both politically and in court
opinions, is about the merits of elections themselves (in the judicial
context). Though this is occasionally acknowledged, the
accountability function of elections is often not addressed at all,
nor is the shift in to whom the judges are accountable given adequate
emphasis when elections eliminate public accountability in favor of
accountability to those with the power to appoint or impeach (and a
diminished accountability at that).
Judicial neutrality is an important value, but it would seem that
accountability to We the People is the more fundamental law and value,
if the two are indeed in conflict.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 3/31/11, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
Rick Esenberg, law professor at Marquette University (and a member of
CCP's
Board of Academic Advisors), has an interesting post at National Review
today regarding Caperton and the significant amount of funding being
poured
into Wisconsin's Supreme Court race by third-party groups:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/263305/defeating-governor-walker-a
ny-means-necessary-rick-esenberg
I suspect Justice Kennedy is going to regret his vote in that case.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)