On the ballot for this state are a number of justices on the state's court system (supreme, appeals) that seem to be seeking just confirmation.

I suspect given the left leaning tendencies of the state populace in general and the source of the appointee, that I don't generally agree with the judge's positions and rulings.

However, to be fair, I don't really have any insights into a specific judge nor was any information provided.

Does one usually just not cast a ballot - don't answer either yes or no? Or what? The choices are not really a vote for candidate rather just a yes / no if the judge should remain in position. Doesn't seem like either response would change anything....

Here in Chicago, Cook County, I always vote against every judge up for re-election.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
However, to be fair, I don't really have any insights into a specific judge nor was any information provided.

There rarely is. We have an initiative on the ballot this year that would essentially require party affiliation for judges/justices. I am all in favor of that one. The leftists, of course, are against it, screaming, "we have to keep the judiciary nonpartisan" when all the while they rule reliably lefty.

Yeah, in a perfect world, we could all agree with Justice Roberts that the judiciary is and should be nonpartisan, but it's not...and everyone knows it.

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
Here in Chicago, Cook County, I always vote against every judge up for re-election.

Unless I know a particular candidate, this is what I have always done as well.

I don’t know where you are or what the ballot questions about the judges mean there, but in Colorado they are whether the judge be retained in office. If enough “no” votes are cast, he/she is removed from the office.

The voters’ guide that the state sends to us has a brief discussion of each judge on the ballot, including whether an association of trial lawyers recommends that they be retained. Anything other than recommendation to retain is almost unknown, but several years ago our local judge got a “no recommendation” rating. He was really bad for several reasons that were cited in the guide (and served as the opposition attorney in a suit I was involved in), but the local voters still kept him in office.

Sounds similar here. The voting pamphlet only had info about 2 of 9 judges up for confirmation. The information was very sparse indicating only degrees received. Nothing to indicate performance. Just a name, like any other name. I'll just probably leave it empty. I could put no but even if it worked, likely we'd just end up with someone worse.

Here the vote is to retain the judges. I always vote NO. They need to feel insecure in their position so they don't become too outrageous.

We do have one state supreme court justice that needs to be removed. Hopefully the campaign is successful in getting enough NO votes.

I’m in the Bay Area like you.

I voted no on all the judges.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
Here in Chicago, Cook County, I always vote against every judge up for re-election.

Unless I know a particular candidate, this is what I have always done as well.

We have a state database of all Judges, it tells you something about them, education, location and who appointed them. I check to see what governor appointed them, if it's DeSantis I'll generally vote to keep them, Charlie Crist would be a no.

In theory if you have a governor you trust to put in a good judge then voting them all out so he/she could put in a new judge of their choosing works.

In some states there's really nothing you can do to help because removing a judge in CA means Newscum will put in someone even worse.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
The information was very sparse indicating only degrees received. Nothing to indicate performance.

I could put no but even if it worked, likely we'd just end up with someone worse.

What indication of performance would you want?

If a sitting judge gets a lot of negative votes, their seat could be seen as vulnerable

It is considered unprofessional, in the legal community to run against a sitting judge, but it does occasionally happen. Usually it happens when a judge has become unpopular and is seen as vulnerable by a lawyer who wants to be a judge but hasn't been appointed. Over the years, I've seen several judges lose their seats

I vote for no D 100% of the time, even for dog catcher!

If their party denomination is missing, I assume they are D and vote no.

Every POS D gets their start in a "Non Partisan" election, city council for instance.

No sir, not going to do it, they get a NO!

Unlike CA, here in TX, judges are connected to political parties in elections, Democrat or Republican, and IMO,good info for the voter. Needless to say, the Court of Criminal Appeals and State Supreme Court, all seats elected statewide, both courts 100% Republican.

If they’re removed the governor gets to replace them. Google them. You’ll find out who appointed them and what they did before becoming judges. In CA there’s a small chance you might remove a good one and a big chance you might replace one turd with another.

I was able to see some rankings by the State Bar and by the Republican party for our Judge confirmations. Still less than perfect but at least gave some guidance.

Here in Kentucky, the judicial, school board, and local city government races are all “non-partisan” (no political party designation), or they are supposed to be.

This forces the voters to try and find out how the various candidates are aligned by checking prior voting and reading up on them. As most of the judicial races are unopposed, it’s rather ridiculous to try and find out anything about the candidates; the “judicial mafia” at work here !

The local school board races were thrown into turmoil this year, as the State Supreme Court said Jefferson County couldn’t have a different system than the rest of the State, and forced a complete turnover with some members deciding not to run again, and also eliminating 2 of the positions. The candidates for position in my district are all listed as non-partisan, but only one has the complete backing of the Democrat-controlled teachers union; so I know the one for whom I WILL NOT vote for.

As for the Louisville Metro government races, the Republican-controlled State Legislature this past year in its “infinite wisdom” made those races (Mayor and Council), the first two past the post in the Primary to then face off in the General Election. Only thing was, the top two in the Mayoral face-off General Election are BOTH Democrats, the current Mayor and a current council member who has total backing of the DSA !!! The Jefferson County Republican Party is a joke, as it hasn’t fielded a viable candidate for any county-wide race since 2003, before the merger of City and County governments.

WE’RE DOOMED !!!!!