According to this excerpt, "Proponents of judicial elections argue that this method of selection is the most democratic, allowing the people to have a direct voice in selecting judges. They believe voters are capable of selecting a judiciary that reflects their values and that they are entitled to that choice.42 Another argument put forth by proponents of this selection method is that affiliating judicial candidates with a political party efficiently communicates the candidate's values and ideologies to voters.", what do the supporters of partisan judicial elections say are the advantages of keeping the system?

 

2) According to this excerpt,"Critics counter that the growing amount of fundraising in election campaigns gives special interest groups a foothold to manipulate the judiciary to their liking. It is undisputed that judicial elections, and particularly partisan elections, have become much more expensive in the last decade.43 Proponents of judicial reform contend that there are at least two ways in which campaign financing might be associated with judicial decisions in favor of campaign contributors' interests. The first way is a "selection bias" among the set of judges who win elections. More specifically, judges who are already ideologically or otherwise predisposed to vote in favor of certain interests are likely to draw campaign financing from business groups and, by virtue of those resources, are more likely to be elected. Secondly, critics claim, judges who are not ideologically or otherwise predisposed to vote in favor of certain interests might, whether intentionally—or, as one former judge put it, subliminally—cast votes in cases either to obtain financial support from those interests for their future campaigns, or at least to reduce incentives for opposition or attacks funded by those interests." What concerns do those opposed to partisan judicial elections have and why do they want to see the system change?

 

3) Which of these two arguments did you find more persuasive? Why?