This election season has brought quite a discussion on bringing back judges who have been previously defeated. In case you’ve missed it, here’s the latest comment posted by Cindy:
“Give me a choice between two candidates and I might believe both to be good, yet I can vote for only one. A sitting judge can lose an election for a myriad of reasons. While some people may perceive losing an election to be like getting fired, that doesn’t make it so.”What do you think about the way we select judges in Sedgwick County? Do you favor elections? Or would you rather see judges chosen as nearly half the districts in Kansas do, by non-partisan merit selection?
Judges are welcome to comment, too. We’d like to hear from everyone.
4 Comments
Losing an election is getting fired, pure and simple. No other way to spin it. I like election, for the very reason that a judge may be removed. It tends to keep them on their toes.
Losing an election is not like getting fired. Elections are about more than competency. They are about public perception and financial backing. Would a good judge necessarily have the charisma to win an election?
Judges need to be elected by the people. When a Judge gets gets beholden to whoever hired him the court becomes biased.
There are some biased judges in the Juvenile Court. Who do they owe?
A lack of transparency and accountability in Juvenile contributes to this problem. Evrything is confidential and they can legislate from the bench and deny due process with no penalty to them.
Good luck getting one of them for judicial misconduct…the good old boy system and the bar association will all stick together and the people suffer for it.
We need judges who are fair, firm and above all honest and ethical. Some are not.
prdhckstz ngriq enfxm jsanryux eqbiu ftjgkxywv hgozsul