I'm aware that Rasmussen is a Republican-leaning polling outfit and
has their own model of "likely voters" as most pollsters do, and that
it's controversial in some quarters. That being said, this will only
increase the margin of error and not fundamentally change the result.
It shouldn't be surprising that voters favor having judges accountable
to them via elections instead of unaccountable (or unaccountable, if
life tenured) to those who appoint and/or confirm.
On a few issues, this one included, I think there are distinct
differences between the political class, however defined, and the
general public. For example, on the subject of international aid,
such aid is very popular with the political class who see its utility
in influencing foreign affairs, and much less popular with the general
public.
Without defending Rasmussen, yet conceding some additional margin for
error, I think Rasmussen's poll numbers are 'in the ballpark' and make
quite a bit of sense on this particular issue. I take Rasmussen's
results poll by poll, and when I do cite them it is with the
consciousness of those shortcomings others point to in this thread.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 4/13/11, Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote:
Leaving Rasmussen aside, is there really much doubt that the American public
(or the subset of likely voters) prefer elected judiciaries? Paul G. notes
the old incongruities in American public opinion, and, for example, it's
true that the appointed U.S. Supreme Court usually shows up quite well in
"confidence" surveys. But it strikes me that electing judges pretty much
always comes out on top in any poll, and most importantly, in any
referendum.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Paul Gronke
Sent: Wed 4/13/2011 12:59 AM
To: Paul Lehto
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Only 22% of Americans think most judges should be
appointed
Paul,
There are so many problems with Rasmussen's polls and his transparent
agenda that I'm not sure where to start. The "political class" you
are referring to is a creation of Rasmussen's. The three questions
that are supposed to separate the "political class" from the
"mainstream" (Rasmussen's tendentious labels) are here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/67_of_political_class_say_u_s_heading_in_right_direction_84_of_mainstream_disagrees
In the same story linked above, Rasmussen asserts that our "treasured
heritage" of self-governance have been "diminished beyond all
recognition ... as little more than allowing voters to choose which of
two politicians will rule over them."
Well, no. "Our cherished heritage" originally included just ONE
chamber of ONE branch of government with direct popular election.
Rasmussen has apparently forgotten about the Electoral College,
indirect election of Senators, and the appointment process to the
Supreme Court.
But let's forgive Rasmussen's ignorance of American political thought.
Let's look at the poll directly. It asks a series of agree/disagree
statements about judges. The one you highlighted is about whether
judges should be "elected or appointed." Judges are not identified
any further than "judges."
Problem 1: What judges? Federal, district, state, local, traffic court?
Problem 2: Is the opinion target "judges" distinct, meaning, would
respondents give any different answer for any other governmental
office, from president to dog-catcher? We have no idea therefore we
have no context within which to place the responses.
Problem 3: Do we have any other information about the accuracy of
perceptions of Courts? 37% of the same respondents state that the
"average" judge is "too liberal" and that the Supreme Court is also
"too liberal." Interesting. I am not going to comment on what the
makeup of the Court should be, but anyone who thinks the current Court
merits the label "liberal" is reflecting political fiction more than
legal fact.
But even if we accept the poll results, do we find this surprising and
do we find it revealing? Consider some alternative data points: in a
series of studies, John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse showed
that:
84% of the public favored more use of initiatives
68% wanted term limits on Congress
63% wanted power shifted to state and local governments
Sounds like a populist public, right? The same study found that 48%
of the public endorsed either "leaving government decisions in the
hands of successful business people" or "leaving government decisions
in the hands of non-elected experts." 65% of the sample agreed that
"people just don't have the time or knowledge to make political
decisions."
We've long known that the public expresses support for more elections
and more control, yet the same public expresses skepticism about
elected officials and longs for non-partisan, expert decision making.
It would take too long to explain this apparent contradiction here--I
refer you to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's excellent books on the
subject. This doesn't even address the much more fundamental issues
that I started with: we don't design constitutions by asking questions
on public opinion polls. Public support is one piece of information,
but it's far from dispositive.
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-771-3142
paul.gronke@gmail.com
Professor of Political Science and
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Reed College
http://earlyvoting.net <http://earlyvoting.net/>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
It is, perhaps, a disappointment to some on this list that only 22%
(in a Rasmussen poll released today) think that most judges should be
appointed. Sixty-five percent (65%) favor election. What Rasmussen
calls 'the political class' disagrees, with a plurality of 49%
favoring appointment. I conclude that the people still favor
democratically elected judges, despite hand-wringing amongst the
political class about the "evils" of judicial elections. Among other
things, this hand-wringing (if it becomes successful) has the effect
of shifting power to the political class, because the power of
appointing judges shifts power to elected officials and political
establishments and away from voters.
See
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/65_say_most_judges_should_be_elected_political_class_disagrees
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law