No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Many political scientists have condemned direct election of judges. Of late, an increasing number have recommended the plan of having a judge “run against his record” instead of having him run for office on the strength of his record and at the same time campaign against declared opponents. In California, an experiment has recently been undertaken designed to test the validity of such a plan.
By popularly initiated constitutional amendment, originated by the Commonwealth Club of California and supported by the state chamber of commerce, the state has modified its long-used method of selecting judges of the supreme courts and the district courts of appeal. The amendment neither ends all popular election of judges nor vests all authority for selection in the hands of state officers.
1 Sixty-five per cent of those who voted at the election voted on this proposal, which was adopted by 810,320 to 734,857.
2 A recent survey of the selection of judges in California inaccurately states that four members of the present court were originaliy elected. See Johnson, J. Edward, “Should California Change its Present Method of Selecting Judges?,” State Bar Journal, April, 1933Google Scholar.
3 Another popularly initiated constitutional amendment (drafted by the state bar association) adopted at the same election increased the powers of this official and, in particular, wrote into the fundamental law several provisions on the subject which previously were found only in the statutes.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.