I'm all for having a fine judiciary, but I'm not sure elections are the way to go about this. Since judges won't or can't debate on the issues, they don't really have anything to campaign on. It's hard to campaign for the fact that you're impartial and well versed in the law. The public is too easily swayed by big money special interest groups. I don't have a better suggestion, but I don't think the current system, even with competitive elections, works.
Especially when the new PAC in question is the tool of DUI defense lawyers.
Kirk used to be a DA, but worked at the same court where the only sitting District Court judge got beat out by both challengers (after she got reprimanded for ethics violations). Perhaps it's his desire to see DUI-friendly judges, but it could also be emotional trauma from working with that judge that compels him to work on this new PAC.
Either way, PACs and judicial elections are a bad mix.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).