3 Apr 2005, great credit to J. Randolph Evans writing in the AJC. J. Randolph Evans is an Atlanta attorney and a member of the state elections board. Reproduced in full:
Amid the fraud prevention controversy, one of the most significant provisions in the Legislature's election reform package — shifting judicial candidates from the primary to the general election ballot — went largely unnoticed. All but ignored by the media and activists, this change represents an important step toward increasing judicial accountability.
Prior to the change, judicial elections were held in conjunction with partisan primary elections in the middle of summer, where only 14 percent to 18 percent of the electorate chose members of Georgia's courts, including the Supreme Court. Recently, the Terri Schiavo case, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and death penalty cases have moved both federal and state judiciaries from the shadows of American government. Yet, Georgia election laws shielded the state's judiciary from the political spotlight of the November general election, when other high-ranking government officials face the voters.
Under the new law, judicial races will appear on the general election ballot in November, where roughly 65 percent to 75 percent of the state's registered voters will likely participate. The resulting change will as much as triple the number of voters who choose Georgia's judges, including those to the Georgia Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Not only will there be more voters participating in the election of Georgia judges, the heightened voter interest and corresponding media attention that are part and parcel of the general election season will guarantee a more informed electorate.
Why is this change so significant and important? In short, if the purpose of electing judges is accountability, then real accountability is best served by electing judges with the largest and most informed electorate possible. Recently, when the executive and legislative branches lost touch with a majority of Georgians, they were held accountable. The rest of Georgia's state government was rapidly transformed in four short years as voters ousted increasingly liberal incumbents and replaced them with conservative candidates. Under the Georgia Constitution, there is no reason why the judicial branch should be any different.
Sadly, the old system minimized the chances that a majority of Georgians would be heard in judicial elections. The result has been a static judiciary largely loyal to governors from a time that has come and gone.
For example, in our Supreme Court, Georgia has not seated a single new justice in the past decade, with average tenure running well over 10 years. Our one retiring justice was appointed more than 15 years ago. There are judges serving in 2005 who were first appointed more than a quarter of a century ago. Based on past turnover of justices and judges, it would take more than two decades under the old law for the judicial branch to begin reflecting changes that have occurred in the other branches of state government in recent elections.
Increasingly, with continuing reports of activist judges, voters want more accountability from the courts, not less. Yet, holding elections at a time of minimal voter participation creates a static system. The current timing makes judicial elections an insider's game, where incumbents stay in office so reliably that few challengers even bother to run against them.
In the 2004 elections, significantly less than 10 percent of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Superior Court elections in Georgia featured meaningful competition. Even worse, well over 80 percent of the judges in these races faced no competition at all.
Critics of making our system more accountable take the elitist position that judges should not face the inconvenience of actually running for re-election. Competitive judicial elections, they argue, would threaten the very integrity of our system. Basically, they do not trust Georgia voters to be able to determine good judges from bad, or bought judges from honest ones. They believe that they know better than the people.
Fortunately, voters are actually smarter than critics give them credit for being. And there is a veritable army of attorneys, journalists, commissions, academics and activists who closely watch judges for the slightest sign of unethical conduct. Of course, the increased scrutiny associated with November elections only increases that supervision. Moving judicial elections from the obscurity of midsummer partisan primaries to the light of November elections will dramatically maximize accountability, not diminish it.
Georgia has good judges. And, most would have very little to fear from heightened voter participation and greater media scrutiny. But for the handful who decide to legislate rather than decide, or veer from the most basic norms of a civilized society, higher scrutiny and better voter participation will serve as the missing measure of accountability under the old system.
Accountability is the reason we elect judges in the first place. It is long past time those elections were moved from the shadows of the electoral process into the light of a new day in Georgia.
Hear, hear!
