Judicial candidates should not align themselves with a political party or discuss positions when seeking office
Here’s a novel idea that’s certain not to catch on:
Before you become a candidate for a judgeship at any level – municipal, district appellate, federal, or a state or US Supreme Court – whether appointive or elective, you must renounce all affiliation with any political party and you must never so much as whisper any partisan political utterance whatsoever.
And when any such judgeship to which you aspire is elective (as all but federal judgeships in Louisiana are), you are forbidden from accepting political contributions from any attorney, paralegal or private investigator or any of their family members.
Finally, if you so much as think you might want to be a judge one day, you must refrain from making political contributions yourself or from any member of your immediate family to any political candidate.
All that flies in the face of tradition and amounts to a slap in the face of good old fashion politics but in the end, aren’t judges, by definition, supposed to be impartial to a fault? To carry the label of a political party or to express personal leanings in an election ad seems to debase the very image of the position, lowering the title holder to little more than just another political hack.
So, why do I feel this way? And am I alone in this? It’s really only common sense when you think about it. Let’s say, for example, that you are a plaintiff or defendant in some criminal or civil case. The presiding judge has received generous campaign contributions from your opposing counsel while your attorney committed the unpardonable sin of supporting the judge’s opponent in the last election.
Think you’re going to get a fair deal? Perhaps, but if things don’t go your way, you will never be able to shake that feeling that you got screwed by politics.
Maybe your courtroom opponent was the CAMPAIGN MANAGER for the judge’s election campaign. How impartial is that? Perhaps a better question would be how cozy is that?
How about the case of former 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal Judge HENRY BROWN? His case had nothing to do with campaign contributions or the like, but it did illustrate how easily judges can lose sight of their ability to rule impartially and fairly.
Or say you have what you feel is a solid case of excessive force by the local sheriff on your kid. Or maybe the sheriff barged into your house by mistake on one of those no-knock warrants and in the ensuing confusion, shot and killed your prize show-dog. But when you sue the sheriff – if you can even get past the qualified immunity obstacle he’s sure to throw in your path – you find that the presiding judge, of all people, contributed to the sheriff’s last election campaign. What do you think your odds are now?
Take, for instance, a Republican judge on one of the state’s five Courts of Appeal. On her web page, she unabashedly describes herself as “a lifelong conservative,” which might be slightly off-putting to a dedicated liberal who, understandably, might desire a more open-minded judge hearing his case.
Not only that, but this judge has contributed generously through the years to various political candidates, including $2,000 she once dropped on Attorney General Jeff Landry.
Another Republican appeal court judge hedged his bets somewhat back in 2003 when he contributed $3100 to Democrat Kathleen Blanco but was less generous in giving only $600 to Republican Bobby Jindal. But he scattered smaller contributions to a host of other political candidates.
And then there’s Louisiana Attorney General and probable 2023 gubernatorial candidate Jeff Landry, who greased the campaigns of judges, political action committees, gubernatorial and legislative candidates.
There are certain NORMS that judicial candidates are expected to observe. Even when subject to the rigors of a public election, a judge must assume a role separate from that of a run-of-the-mill office holder. Rather than making the popular decision based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case. Period. Therefore, it is critical that judges and judicial candidates, to the greatest extent possible, be free from political influence and the prevailing mood of the moment.
Both party affiliation and contributions to political parties are allowed but not to individual candidates, according to JUDICIAL CANONS, which also caution that judicial candidates should not “make statements which cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to decide impartiality any issue that may come before a judge.” (emphasis added)
Despite the existence of those canons and of disciplinary procedures theorhetically in place, judges continue to fly below the radar and are probably the public officials held least accountable, recent scrutiny of the US Supreme Court notwithstanding.
Which brings us to Louisiana Supreme Court Justice JEFF HUGHES who, in his campaign for the state’s high court was so frank as to trumpet his pro-gun, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-death penalty positions while boasting in his TV ads, “President Obama would never appoint Jeff Hughes to the Louisiana Supreme Court.” (John Kennedy is probably wishing he’d said something like that in one of his folksy TV spots. I’s so him.)
Well, of course not, silly man. First of all, the position is elective, not appointive. Second, Obama doesn’t appoint any judges at the state level. You see, he’s federal. We’re state. You should’ve learned that in high school civics.
And pity the poor pro-choice gay shooting victim who might suffer the fate of having Hughes write the opinion on his appeal.