Should justice be dependent on the luck of the draw for a competent judge?

Admitting ignorance gets easier each time I do it. I usually find, after a chorus of, “I wonder the same things,” and “Good questions,” others will help me find the answers I seek once they know I am looking. Coming clean about my apathy is a different story. Please hold me gently through this experience.

I am fifty-two-years old. Until recently, I gave little thought to the judicial candidates listed at the bottom of my ballot. Most of the time, I didn’t vote for any of them. Sometimes, I cast a vote because I knew a name. I am ashamed, on many levels.

Through my apathy and ignorance, I left my peers at the mercy of people who might not have been qualified, might not have cared enough to listen to their defense, or might not have shared their values or philosophies, which do come into play during consideration of laws. I spent a few days in courtrooms recently, listening to exactly how much difference a judge’s heart contributes to interpretation and justice, and offer this public apology to my community for not taking my judicial votes as seriously as I should have in the past.

Jefferson County District Court (Kentucky) has one judge sitting, Paula Fitzgerald, who earned a 54% positive rating in judicial temperament, 52% in court management, 69% in judicial integrity, 34% in legal ability, and 36% in overall performance in 2005. 367 lawyers participated in the survey, each rating only judges with whom he or she had substantial contact in court, and this was the fourth consecutive survey of district and family court judges in which Fitzgerald was rated lowest. Last year, 36% of her peers rated her unqualified for her job. Martin F. McDonald comes close behind her with a 66% in judicial temperament, 78% in court management, 84% in judicial integrity, and 53% in legal ability.

This leaves several important questions. Should justice be dependent on the luck of the draw for a competent judge? Is it fair to deprive anyone of a fair trial or hearing, because voters elected an incompetent judge?

Unless finding ourselves on the receiving end of a Judge Fitzgerald’s incompetence, how many of us would give her performance a second thought? Without sitting in her courtroom to observe, where do we, the voters, find the information we need in order to cast an informed vote? When judicial candidates show up at other political campaigns to shake hands and distribute flyers, do we really get all the information we need to make an informed decision? I don’t think so.

During a recent election cycle, someone solicited my time to work a judicial candidate’s campaign. When the request came the first time, I returned it with questions. Why does this candidate want the office? In her words, what makes her the right person for the position? The response was judicial candidates are not allowed to state a party affiliation. I explained I did not want a party affiliation; I wanted, in her own words, a reason to support her. Five communications later, I still knew nothing about this candidate and declined the invitation to participate in her campaign.

The yard signs are out, and it’s once again time to consider judicial candidates. I hope everyone will review and internalize the meaning of these words from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “There could hardly be a higher government interest than a State’s interest in the quality of its judiciary.