Yes, we really elect judges in Oregon.
Article VII, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution provides, in part:
“The judges of the supreme and other courts shall be elected by the legal voters of the state or of their respective districts for a term of six years, and shall receive such compensation as may be provided by law[.]”
But in practice, most judges in the state are appointed by the governor as provided in Article V, section 16, after a sitting judge retires mid-term. This results in a hybrid system where nearly every judge is initially appointed by the governor before facing election. Those elections are almost always uncontested, resulting in a de facto life tenure. But sometimes a sitting judge is challenged and becomes accountable to the public.
There are some downsides to elected judges. First, most voters are not in a position to understand who is or may be a good judge. The races are considered “low information” elections. A person’s popularity or ability to raise and spend money on a campaign likely has little to no correlation to the type of judge they will be.
Second, we have campaigns for judges, which is pretty unseemly. Do we really want judges asking people for money or for their votes?
So is there a better way?
Then why don’t we just have an appointment system?
The federal constitution provides for appointment of judges by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate. Those judges have lifetime tenure “in good behavior.” (See Federalist #78) .
The benefit to this system is that judges are insulated from the impulses and emotions of voters in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary. The downside is that it is very difficult to remove a judge who is just doing a bad job, people may be appointed just due to their political connections, and it is not very democratic!
Yes!
The late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor extensively studied the issue of state court judges and came up with a plan that incorporates the best of both systems.
You can read more about that plan here.
The basics are that we have a nominating committee that vets potential judicial candidates to ensure that they are qualified for the job. The committee then submits one or more names to the governor for appointment.
Next, an objective committee produces regular report or scorecard for each judge, which can provide voters information on whether the judge is doing their jobs appropriately.
Finally, judges go up for retention elections where the incumbent is the only name on the ballot and voters are asked to either retain or recall the judge. If the judge is recalled, we start back at the top. A retention election is not likely to result in anywhere near the amount of campaigning that open elections have but still permits the voters to have a check on the judiciary.