Voters will judge the bench
Elections can be a little odd.
For instance, what do you know about the competence of Warren Keene, the Kootenai County coroner?
As it happens, the good doctor is running unopposed for re-election this year, but he did have to defeat Debbie Wilkey to win the coroner’s job in 2014.
So how, exactly, did the average plumber, pipefitter or public accountant rate the autopsy skills of those two coroner candidates?
Now then, leaving the morgue …
The point here is that much of the public truly isn’t qualified to properly assess candidates for many elected positions — and yet we do our best with the system in place.
Consider John Mitchell, who has been a judge with Idaho’s First Judicial District for 16 years.
Mitchell originally was appointed to the bench by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne in 2001, won an easy victory to stay seated in 2006, and then enjoyed three consecutive election cycles in which he was unopposed.
Now as a veteran jurist, and the prime mover behind the district’s very successful mental health court, Mitchell suddenly finds himself with an opponent this spring.
The challenger is public defender Doug Pierce, but that’s not really the point.
Having a judge — any judge — out hustling for votes just seems …
Weird.
Mitchell definitely isn’t complaining about a campaign, but he came up with an even better word for the spectacle that’s required.
“It’s what we have to do once in a while,” Mitchell said. “You’ve got to play by the rules.
“But I agree, just the notion of a judge putting up posters, taking contributions and trying to win votes is a bit … unseemly.”
Yes, it really is.
We’re not discussing a clerical position. District court judges handle felonies, and thus literally decide the outcome of people’s lives.
Mitchell, though, has been around long enough to understand that there aren’t many options to the electoral process.
“If you appoint judges, there is always the hint of politics,” he said. “And in cases where judges are appointed for life, there are obvious potential issues.
“I actually like the federal magistrate system, where judges face a panel of their peers after a certain number of years. That ensures a form of oversight.”
YET ELECTIONS are what we have, and Mitchell is running like a candidate for commissioner or county assessor.
Well, almost.
“Yes, I’ll be out on the rubber-chicken circuit, introducing myself and hoping to make the proper impression,” Mitchell said. “But I also have to adhere to the ethics of judicial canons, which are spelled out in state law. My opponent is bound by the canons, as well.
“You can’t talk about specific cases. You can’t answer questions about hypothetical cases or situations.
“I’m actually very fortunate that we’ve had such success with the mental health court, because that’s a non-specific issue that I can discuss.
“But to give you an example of the difference in a judicial election, the candidates actually are not allowed to know who has contributed to their campaigns.”
Despite the somewhat bizarre circumstances, Mitchell sees an upside to his first contested election in 12 years.
“It’s an opportunity to get out and meet people, some of whom might not have the chance to speak with the judge under normal circumstances,” he said.
“That’s really the upside of the electoral process, connecting with the community on an everyday level, rather than in a courtroom.
“All in all, that’s not a bad thing. Not in the least.”
•••
Steve Cameron is a columnist for The Press.
Email: scameron@cdapress.com.
Facebook: BrandNewDayCDAPress.
Twitter: @BrandNewDayCDA