Why Judges are not Identified as Republicans or Democrats

With the election fast approaching, several citizens have inquired about the political affiliation of the judges whose names are on the ballot. This information is not available. Why?

Utah has adopted a system called “merit selection of judges,” nationally recognized as the best way to ensure a fair and impartial judiciary. The Utah Constitution clearly states: “Selection of judges shall be based solely upon consideration of fitness for office without regard to any partisan political consideration.” Utah Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 8. The Utah Constitution further clarifies: “The judicial retention elections shall be held on a nonpartisan ballot in a manner provided by statute.” Utah Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 9. And statute provides that each appointed judge must run in an unopposed retention election at the end of each term of office. Utah Code Ann. Section 20A-12-201(1)(a).

No partisan political considerations. Nonpartisan ballots. Unopposed retention elections. What did the writers of our Constitution and our lawmakers have in mind?

The big idea behind Merit Selection has two parts. First, the judiciary should be independent. Judges should be selected because they are excellent lawyers. Judges should be people who both know the law well and treat those who appear before them fairly and impartially. Selection should not turn on who can raise the most money to win a contested political election. By choosing judges based on merit and insulating them from the need to solicit money from special interests, Utah has gone a long way towards ensuring an independent judiciary.

Second, however, the judiciary must be accountable to the public. Retention elections serve as the voice of the people, a check and balance on the selection process. With a simple majority vote, the public can either give or deny the judge an additional term of office.

But accountability is only meaningful if the voting public is informed.

The Commission provides citizens with the information they need to cast informed votes about judges. Citizens can learn whether the Commission recommended the judge for retention, how the Commission described the judge’s performance, how surveyed attorneys, court staff, and jurors rated the judge, how courtroom observers perceived the judge. They can find out about the judge’s legal ability, temperament and integrity, and administrative skills. There’s a lot of useful voter information on this site. But the judge’s private political affiliation, if any, cannot by law be a part of the equation.