ABSTRACT
We began this volume with observations about the intense controversy currently raging in the American states over the practice of electing judges, as well as sharp disagreements about the benefits and disadvantages of any alternatives. Rancorous campaigns that include issue discourse and televised attack advertising designed to disparage judges and their choices, vigorous electoral competition, and issues endemic to campaign fundraising and spending are among the most pressing concerns promoting the fundamental proposition among many in the legal community that the time has come to jettison judicial elections. In the words of the American Bar Association Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary (2003, viii):
Whatever its historic rationale there can no longer be justification for contested judicial elections accompanied by “attack” media advertising that require infusions of substantial sums of money. These contested elections threaten to poison public trust and confidence in the courts by fostering the perception that judges are less than independent and impartial, that justice is for sale, and that justice is available only to the wealthy, the powerful, or those with partisan influence.
