How many elections are uncontested?Why do some donate in uncontested elections? -> Possible loophole in the systemWhat contribution-related problems would public financing solve? -> reduce undueinfluence, level playing groundAppointment system reduces accountability. Yet appointed judges are moreindependent and are likelier to promote minority interests that may conflict withmajority preferences [p.35]Electing judges results in more discrimination cases being heard [p.35]Study suggests that judicial quality is the lowest in states with partisan elections[p.35] The Rule of Law Notes:Lack of coverage in judicial elections is problematic. Greater levels of informationlead to higher voter turnout. There is little empirical research that exists on judicial elections; Philip Duboispublished
From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability
in1980 and found that judicial elections increase accountability and allows judges tobe more receptive to the public. Judicial election systems are important because they change who is serving on thebench and the incentives that they face. Different individuals lead to differentoutcomes and behavior is influenced by the necessity to be re-elected or re-appointed. Ten states currently select trial and appellate court judges through partisanelections and eight use partisan election systems to choose state Supreme Court justices
. However, Washington, along with XXX other states choose all levels of judges based on a nonpartisan election system. Proponents of nonpartisan electionsargue that it promotes impartiality. Opponents argue that it does not allow thepublic to get a clear sense of who they are electing to the bench. Furthermore,competitiveness is increased in nonpartisan elections because when you removeone variable, it makes others more important.
The Rule of Law pp.54