Confession of a frustrated voter: I close the curtain in the voting booth, look at the names of judicial candidates and don't know any of them.

This is bad, because I mostly do politics for a living. I usually end up voting for the female or known minority candidates, because we middle-aged white guys have screwed things up long enough.

Confession of a derelict reporter: I am asked by candidates, "How do you cover judicial races.'' I answer: "We don't.''

What's to cover? Beyond their resumes -- judicial equivalent of name, rank and serial number -- candidates for judge can't tell you anything. A day with them on the campaign trail yields an empty notebook, because they are prohibited by their canons of ethics from having philosophical views, opinions, feelings and anything but white hair.

Elections are the best way to choose officials who preside over decisions involving life and death. Without the humbling exercise of walking among the voters every four or six years, pomposity tends to set in real fast for those on the bench.

As long as we elect judges, they will be politicians. If that notion is offensive, then opt for merit selection, a process by which white- haired men choose judges from among themselves.

For years, Ohio has pretended that judges are not politicians. This is folly, because we nominate judges in partisan primary elections. And then when the nonpartisan general election arrives, we are told to forget that a judicial candidate is a Republican or Democrat.

"That's the most irrational system of them all,'' Erik S. Jaffe, an extremely smart Washington lawyer who used to clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, told me last week. "You make judicial candidates kowtow to partisan groups to get the nomination, and then you try to hide that from voters in the fall.''

What's worse is that states such as Ohio require judicial candidates to be empty-headed. They are asked to conceal from us all of their philosophies and prejudices and preconceptions that, by dint of human nature, could seep into legal rulings affecting our lives. By not telling us how they view the world, judges can say their impartiality is not clouded by their views. How would we know?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exposed this ruse on Thursday. He wrote: "Even if it were possible to select judges who did not have preconceived views on legal issues, it would hardly be desirable to do so. Proof that a justice's mind at the time he joined the court was a complete (blank slate) in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not bias . . . .

"And, since avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve the 'appearance' of that type of impartiality can hardly be a compelling state interest either.''

Scalia and his colleagues in the majority did voters a big favor. In a landmark decision, they effectively told states: If you elect judges, those judges are politicians. And, as politicians, judicial candidates have First Amendment free-speech rights just like any candidate for mayor, governor or president.

The court did impose one appropriate exception: Judicial candidates cannot promise to vote a certain way in cases. So, even if a candidate says he opposes abortion, he cannot pledge to rule against abortions in cases before him.

Critics say that is a distinction without a difference. If a judicial candidate tells voters he opposes abortion, won't voters perceive that as a promise to rule against abortions? Probably so. But if a candidate opposes abortion and is not required to inform voters of his viewpoint, will that make him as a judge any less apt to rule against abortions in cases? Probably not.

The more voters know about a candidate, the better. Until now, the Ohio Supreme Court has prevented judicial candidates from telling voters much about themselves or their opponents. Along with keeping voters in the dark, this protects incumbents.

In our system, we trust politicians to do the right thing, and if they don't, we get rid of them. The right thing is to serve honestly and honorably. Voters have an uncanny knack for re-electing those who so serve, even if they don't agree with every decision or action.

We should trust judges to interpret and apply the law fairly and to subjugate their own personal views and prejudices. But how can we do that if we are unaware of those views and prejudices? The U.S. Supreme Court came up with the right answer.

Confession of a voter: Come Nov. 5, I no longer will have an excuse if I know nothing about judicial candidates.

Confession of a reporter: I will be derelict if I finish a day of judicial campaigning with an empty notebook.

Joe Hallett is senior editor at The Dispatch.

 Printer-friendly version     E-mail this story

Today's Editorials from The Dispatch