NEVADA STATE COURT JUDGES SHOULD BE APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED, BUT NOT FOR THE REASONS YOU MAY THINK.
The election of judges is unseemly, expensive and because of the power of the incumbency, does not necessarily make judges more accountable. Why does anyone contribute money to a judicial campaign? Civic duty? Moral calling? Perhaps in rare cases, but most contributions arise out of self interest. One may want to have influence with a judge, or at least not risk having a disadvantage. Raising money for a judge is unseemly and invisible strings are attached to virtually every contribution. Attorneys and the general public spend a lot of money on judicial campaigns. Ad agencies and the media are the only ones who really benefit by electing judges. Not having to see all those political signs is at least one good reason to appointment judges.The appointment of judges would be cheaper and would result in more accountability to the litigants rather than to contributors.
Further, the appointment of judges insures a more qualified judge than an elected judge, right? Not so fast. Although I favor the appointment of judges, this process does not necessarily result in better judges. Politics plays a major role in the appointment of judges and often politics trumps qualifications. Although there is a screening process involved with the appointment of judges, there have been appointed judges that have not been any more qualified than some elected judges.
In sum, the appointment of judges is the lesser of evils. As long as newspapers, TV stations and sign makers have a vested interest in expensive elections, however, the appointment process will never get any traction.