Rutgersâ€"Camden Professor Researches Politicization of State Judicial Elections
CAMDEN â€" When Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie removed former Justice John E. Wallace from the state Supreme Court earlier this year, the decision drew sharp criticism from Democrats who control the legislature, as well as the state’s legal community.
(Media-Newswire.com) - CAMDEN — When Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie removed former Justice John E. Wallace from the state Supreme Court earlier this year, the decision drew sharp criticism from Democrats who control the legislature, as well as the state’s legal community.
A Rutgers–Camden professor says what unfolded is an example of the politicized turn judicial appointments and elections are taking across the country.
G. Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional Studies and distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers–Camden, weighs in on the politicization of state judicial elections in the book Bench Press: The Collision of Courts, Politics, and the Media ( Stanford Law and Politics, 2007 ), edited by Keith Bybee.
While New Jersey voters do not elect supreme court judges, Tarr says Christie’s decision to not grant Wallace tenure still “reflects concern about the direction the state courts are going.”
Supreme court justice elections are held in 39 states. Tarr says races for those seats have become politically charged.
“Politicization of judicial races is particularly likely when a state shifts from dominance by a single party to more balanced party competition,” Tarr writes in his chapter, Politicizing the Process: The New Politics of State Judicial Elections.
“In such circumstances, the emerging political party seeks to gain control of all the institutions of state government,” Tarr says.
Two developments affecting state judicial selection are the increasing involvement of state supreme courts in addressing legal issues with far-reaching policy consequences, and the increased involvement of interest groups in judicial selection, Tarr says.
The Rutgers–Camden scholar, who is continuing his research on the subject for a new book, notes that a shift in the partisan balance of power in a state can increase the level of political conflict between a state legislature and the state supreme court.
“Long-term trends in state politics are likely to have long-term consequences,” Tarr says.
But Tarr notes that not everyone views politicization of judicial elections in the states as cause for alarm, and some may laud it for “promoting greater popular control over the judiciary.”
“There are some real important decisions being made in the supreme courts and it’s important that people have some input into what the composition of the courts should be,” Tarr says.
Tarr writes that opponents of the politicization process recommend that states adopt merit selection, a method which combines election and appointment of judges, or reduce politicization by replacing partisan elections with nonpartisan ones.
Media Contact: Ed Moorhouse 856-225-6759 E-mail: ejmoor@camden.rutgers.edu
Related Content
Published by:
Release Date
This story was released on 2010-07-23. Please make sure to visit the official company or organization web site to learn more about the original release date. See our disclaimer for additional information.