It is one thing to cast a vote in a judicial election, but it’s something else to cast an informed vote. Ideally, we would all sit down with the candidates and interview them at length. As you consider the candidates, you certainly want someone who’s qualified. But when all the candidates seem to have the right background for the job, what do you look for then?

Are they qualified?

The bench is no place to be an intern. A candidate should demonstrate solid experience working with the law, of course, but there are other questions to consider.

• What kind of law did they formerly practice; was it one specialized area or do they have broad experience?
• Have they taught courses on the law?
• Have they had a wide variety of professional and personal experiences?
• Do they behave respectfully and courteously to those appearing before them in court?

Who is supporting them?

It is important to look at endorsements since they can sometimes indicate if a candidate has a known or anticipated philosophical approach versus a rule of law approach.

• Does the candidate have the kind of broad support from law enforcement, the legal community and independent organizations that gives you confidence they’ll be impartial, uphold the law, and respect the state constitution?
• Do the endorsements represent special interest groups that have previously benefited from rulings by the candidate, rulings that have been criticized as being driven by a philosophical rather than a rule of law approach?

It can often be difficult for the general public to make sense of endorsements from lawyers or other judges, because they are part of the same system as the successful judicial candidate. Many times, these endorsements represent an informed belief that the candidate is the best person for the job. At other times, endorsements show a “member of the club” mentality to preserve or change the status quo, depending on how the endorsers view their opportunities with the candidate.

What can you learn about the candidates’ judicial philosophy?

Unlike politicians, judicial candidates do not campaign on issues because they must reserve judgment about matters until they can consider all the facts of a case and apply the law to those facts. So it’s important to pay attention to whether a candidate says they will decide cases in certain ways or if they simply state that they will be fair, just and impartial. In addition, look for what they say about issues like judicial activism. Are you convinced that they are in public service for the good of the people and are committed to uphold the law?

What do others say?

In high court campaigns, there’s no shortage of opinions about the candidates -- positive and negative. You should always “consider the source” when reviewing a comment about the candidate. Finally, don't hesitate to call the candidate's campaign office and ask questions directly. Ask them why they took money from a certain interest group if that’s a source of concern for you. Ask them what their judicial philosophy is. Ask what they think about judicial activism. Candidates and their staffs have every incentive to help voters make informed choices, so take every step you can to learn more. In addition, share your knowledge with others, and encourage your family and friends to exercise their right to vote in these important judicial elections.