We can, though it might not be everywhere. Voting on judges might just be a Colorado thing? I don't know for sure.
And yeah - it could make a real difference, but almost always people just vote to let them stay. I don't know if anyone has even been ousted by a vote, ever, because of how many people skip it or just automatically approve or always go with the recommendation (our information booklet - CONVENIENTLY MAILED TO US - has a review for all the judges up for a vote that round that includes a recommendation from a review board, and survey results from citizens who have had cases in front of them, lawyers, and other judges regarding how that judge does with certain metrics). The official review board pretty much always recommends they be retained, I don't know if I've ever seen them recommend otherwise, but I read the whole review with the survey info and such and if I think someone sounds problematic, I will vote no. Like sometimes you'll see some citizens or lawyers thinking the judge has some bias issues or something like that, but the review board still recommends them to stay. It's hard to get people to dislodge the status quo.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: