"Without the ballot in front of them, a large majority of voters could not even name the judicial candidates in the usual election," an anonymous judge told The National Judicial College, the nonprofit organization that conducted the informal survey of more than 500 current and retired judges.
Overall, roughly 85% of surveyed judges said that no more than three in 10 voters were likely to be informed enough to make a responsible decision about a down ballot judgeship race. But a majority of judges are also opposed to transparent performance reviews designed to give more information about those vying for judicial seats.
Nearly 60% said they were against performance reviews, which would be filled out by local counsel, with some citing concerns about bias and the possibility that attorneys upset about a decision could use them to hand out "revenge ratings." Washoe County, Nevada, District Court Judge Sandra A. Unsworth said that such a mechanism sounds too much like Yelp reviews, while another anonymous judge noted that no other elected official has to deal with formal performance reviews.
The current system substantially favors incumbents, who benefit from name recognition and have a greater advantage in terms of fundraising. But that's not isolated to judges, National Judicial College Communications Director Ed Cohen told Law360, noting voters are generally less informed about local candidates and that incumbency advantages are spread across the ballot.
"People are not as well informed about down ballot local candidates, whether it's for the school board or a judgeship," Cohen said.
Still, some judges told the group that media coverage of judicial candidates is "dismal" and that voters should be entitled to more information about a judge than "what a political billboard says."
A variety of judicial elections are taking place this year, including for 78 of the U.S.' 344 state Supreme Court seats, according to Ballotpedia. Each year, several law firms and lobbying groups dole out significant sums of cash in state high court races. In 2020, the 20 biggest nonindividual law firms and legal spenders have spent over $1.2 million on state appellate court campaigns, according to data from the National Institute on Money in Politics.
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
