An excess of participation: A critical examination of judicial elections and their consequences for American democracy.

Abstract

This dissertation critiques popular elections as a method of judicial selection and retention. Its central premise is that because elections undermine the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, in appearance, and sometimes in fact, they hamper the legitimacy of the judiciary and hinder its ability to carry out its duties. The dissertation begins by recounting the history of judicial elections. Then, empirical data about judicial behavior and the behavior of voters in judicial elections are presented to support the argument that judicial elections pose a threat to the independence and impartiality of the courts. The dissertation also presents a study examining the relationship between law firm contributions and voting by the justices of the Michigan Supreme Court, and appendices discussing the history of the court, and the evolution of the methods used to select its members.