While there certainly is room for debate on the issue, the idea that judges should run for election just doesn’t make much sense. A different method of checks and balances on judicial power is needed.

The idea behind requiring judges to run for election is to ensure accountability. Likely, state leaders created the law to elect judges because there had been instances when a judge who lacked competency continued to serve, and citizens had no method of removing that judge.

However, subjecting judges to an election, and throwing politics into the mix, doesn’t seem to work. Perfectly competent judges are now facing campaigns from opponents who may or may not be competent, and are often being funded by special interest groups who opposed rulings made by a particular judge.

In addition, the majority of residents who vote have no idea who many of the judges are and thus are often making an uninformed decision.

A more sensible idea would be to create a board that would rule on cases of judicial incompetency and would have the power to remove a judge if necessary. It goes without saying that such a board needs to be heavily weighted with non-lawyers, to avoid the problems inherent to peer review by cronies and those who are most likely to benefit from a judge’s favorable rulings.

We want our judges to be accountable. But we also want them to be objective. Requiring they be thrown into the political world does anything but.

— The Daily Journal of Fergus Falls, Sept. 10