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
>