About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


60 Docket 1 (2012)

handle is hein.journals/dock60 and id is 1 raw text is: BUFFALO LAW REVIEW THE DOCKET VOLUME 60 APRIL 2012 PAGES 1-11 Meaningful Information, Meaningful Retention JORDAN M. SINGERt Judicial retention elections are at a crossroads. Less than twenty years ago, they were seen as relatively sleepy affairs, characterized by low voter turnout and little or no campaigning. But times have changed. In 2010, high court judges in six states were targeted for non-retention by well- organized and well-financed opposition groups with overtly political agendas.1 Although these efforts mostly proved unsuccessful, anti-retention forces appear to be gaining resilience with each election cycle.2 Once heralded as a relatively apolitical means of ensuring judicial accountability, retention elections now face an uncertain future. In his recent Article, Professor Todd Pettys suggests that we may have reached a breaking point.3 Briefly summarized, his contention is this: modern anti-retention campaigns are particularly powerful because they are able to tap into voters' moral outrage over controversial court t Assistant Professor of Law, New England Law Boston. I am grateful to Tigran Eldred, Lawrence Friedman, and Louis Schulze for helpful comments on earlier drafts. 1. See Roy A. Schotland, Iowa's 2010 Judicial Election: Appropriate Accountability or Rampant Passion?, 46 CT. REV. 118, 118 (2010). 2. See ADAM SKAGGS ET AL., THE NEW POLITICS OF JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2009- 10, at 27 (2011) (More assaults on impartial courts, taking a range of different forms, are on the horizon.). 3. Todd E. Pettys, Judicial Retention Elections, the Rule of Law, and the Rhetorical Weaknesses of Consequentialism, 60 BUFF. L. REV. 69, 78 (2012).