There should not be any retention elections and the justices should serve for life. I believe this method is the best choice for judicial selection because there are numerous problems with the other two methods. Upon looking at the way it currently is, with justices having periodic retention elections, I believe the elections are not only pointless, but harm the credibility of the justices along with the judicial system as a whole. While most of the justices never face any competition in retention elections, the possibility of someone else running against them completely ruins the system. If another person runs against the current justice and wins, they were not appointed by the governor nor were they confirmed by the Senate, so this already questions the credibility of the court. Another issue with retention elections is that elections in general can cause negative media surrounding the candidates. With negative ad campaigns, problems with justices that were never thought of by the general public before can be out in the open. With the general public rarely paying any attention to retention elections, one negative ad can ruin a justice’s entire credibility and whole body of work. Retention elections can cause problems that were non-existent to arise, and take up time that the justice could be using to be more focused on working than just …show more content…
Most of the public has no idea who their judges even are. Elections would take away some of the prestige of being elected by the governor, as merit is not always important for elections. Elections often times become an arms race of who can gather up the most money in support while trashing the other candidate’s campaign through ads or speeches. Most of the time during any elections, the everyday citizen is either uninformed, or under informed. They seem to pay very little attention to campaigns, and are easily swayed