Skip to main content
Oregon elects its judges, but usually they run unopposed, and anyway, there are no performance metrics to evaluate candidates. I don’t bother to select yea or nay in these one-candidate elections, but it annoys me that I can’t perform my civic duty. What’s up? —David S.
In 1857, the authors of the Oregon Constitution, flush with Jacksonian populism, provided for the popular election of the judiciary. Ever since then, our state has been wrestling with one awkward fact: Direct election of judges is a stupid idea.
Even you, David, acknowledge that as an average citizen you lack the expertise necessary to fairly evaluate judicial candidates. And you’re probably better informed than most! For every civic-minded WW reader trying to do the right thing, there are a dozen flat-earthers whose sole source of legal information is a GeoCities web page called “Your Rights as a Sovereign Citizen.” Can we really trust these guys to pick judges? (Or, you know, presidents?)
Having judges run for office also raises some practical and ethical issues. Things other candidates do to help voters choose—taking sides on an issue, for example—violate judicial codes of conduct. Other campaign activities, notably working donors for cash, raise questions about a judge’s future ability to be impartial.
So, voters don’t know anything about judges, and there aren’t any good ways to help them learn. Enter the current kludged-together workaround. It goes like this: (1) Judges retire in the middle of their term, allowing the governor to name a replacement. (2) Come the next election, that replacement can run as an incumbent. (3) Folks like you and me, who don’t know our ass from third base when it comes to the judiciary, go with the incumbency flow—probably even in those rare cases where there’s an actual electoral challenger. (4) Profit!
Mind you, some will still tell you all these midterm retirements (80% to 90% of Oregon judges were appointed midterm) are merely a coincidence. A law professor interviewed by Oregon Public Broadcasting in 2022 claimed judges nearing retirement “don’t necessarily think specifically about serving out their term” and “simply retire when it works for them.” Indeed! If there’s one group well known for devil-may-care impulsivity, it’s retirement-age judges!
No, I’m afraid it’s pretty clear the fix is in, and I, for one, wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Democracy is too important a business to be left in the hands of the people.
Questions? Send them to dr.know@wweek.com.
