Wow. How did this woman get elected?

Her only opponent had the last name Henderson. Therefore, her name came first on the ballot. I'm pretty sure most voters weren't informed about these two candidates, so the order probably determined it in the end. I, by the way, did not vote for her.

did you know anything about her at the time you didn't vote for her, or did you simply not vote on that ballot option. i often have a hard time finding information about those running for obscure offices, though i generally try pretty hard.

wow. i really like the "i'm in trial" evasion tactic. classy.

One of my friends Mother is a top judge in Los Angeles. Every election her daughter would give us a list of judges that her mother liked. Her mother was a dem. so I jsut voted for who she suggested (though I did do a little research on my own). I liked that system. Go befriend some judges! Also, are there no cases of judges that are nominated for office that sucked or were nut bags? Why is one that much better than the other?

Yes, I had met her briefly at an event. Plus, I did a little background research on her experience (which I did for every candidate that I wasn't too familiar with). I think I had read in the paper that she had been a law clerk for 9 years, and that didn't bode well for her.

because that's too long to be a law clerk?

Why is this a problem of judicial elections, per se?

Working at a legal newspaper convinced me we shouldn't have judicial elections because forcing judges to campaign affects their ability to be neutral or be perceived as neutral, which is part of their job. There was a judge in Pennsylvania a few years ago who explicitly campaigned on a promise to decide a certain way on abortion cases (I think), which is just improper. Plus there's an argument to be made that it's unreasonable to expect the average voter to be informed on 15 judicial candidates in addition to all the other local people we vote on.

Antbone: for discredited judges, http://cjp.ca.gov/pubdisc.htm. I'm sure some of those guys were appointed.

Geoff: technically, it's not (Lorelei made the better arguments against that), but I'm pretty sure she never would have been appointed.

Jon: being a law clerk is a 1-2 year job for recent law school grads. If someone was a post-doc for 9 years, what do you think it would say about them?

Might she have been clerk of the court, rather than a judicial clerk?

Lorelei, I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect the average voter to be informed about anything come election time, so I'm with you that judicial elections are silly (though the abortion issue raises some really interesting First Amendment concerns).

Monk: We could, however, imagine a situation where an appointed judge was equally abusive of her station (foot rubs and all), even when she was a competent jurist. The comment was merely that election of judges is not the core issue here, but abuse of power. Still, I agree that there are problems with electing judges (the voter ignorance, the role of partisanship, the buying of favors, the barriers to entry to capable jurists woking outside the party machine, etc.).

For those of you that missed the typo: "woking outside the party machine" is a very dangerous culinary tactic that, if seen in person, is likely to give one the case of the "howling fantods" (thanks DFW; I'm rereading IJ this summer, so I couldn't resist).

hold on a sec: cm, are you telling me that all nevada elections list their candidates in alphabetical order? That makes for a de facto alphabetocracy! In CA I'm pretty sure the order is randomly determined.

It could've been random. I'm not sure.

no, it is alphabetical. State assemblyman Tick Segerblom (you can see the self-interest) introduced a bill to randomize, but I'm pretty sure it was killed (undoubtedly by Bernie Anderson and other early-alphabet benefitters).

There was ample evidence, if not of her opponent's competence, of Halverson's INcompetence. The article Marco linked to is only one of a dozen, literally, detailing her infamy, from her $40,000 unpaid court-ordered judgment for harassing her landlords in court, to her husband's multiple felony record, to the piles of rotting junk in her yard. I do believe that NO politician would have risked the embarrassment of nominating a woman like this to the bench. HOWEVER, they would likely have no problem nominating someone who managed to hide their corruption a little more smartly - in fact, I think that's a qualification for appointment! So, while I believe in judicial election, it's more for LL's reasons (campaign issues) than quality of judging.

I looked for the PA election I was thinking of and couldn't find it, although I think this runs down the First Amendment issues Geoff was talking about.

We do have random ballot placement in California.