Page:The recall of the judiciary in California. A summary of reasons against recalling judges at popular elections (IA recallofjudiciar00denm).pdf/7

 4. Because a man who is a deep student of men and codes, and possesses a real judicial temperament, rarely has the gift of stump speaking necessary to make his case before the people in a recall campaign, even if the electorate had the expert knowledge to understand the distinctions he is attempting to make.

5. Because the judicial office is very little in the public eye. The conspicuous decision of an unpopular nature in such cases as are referred to will outweigh years of quiet, conscientious public service, all the better because accomplished in an inconspicuous manner. While the law is not an exact science in the sense of mathematics or physics, it is a complicated science requiring quiet expert research and a highly developed special knowledge as well as a broad sympathy and understanding of human nature.

6. Because, in order to give permanency to our institutions, our governmental organization is based on a written constitution. It is the duty of the judge to determine the constitutionality of many questions of a quasi-political nature, which affect many different factions. In the heat of such struggles a combination of factions could be easily arranged to recall the judge while the orderly and more conservative procedure of amending the constitution will be ignored. The recall at popular election would make the courts a forum of popular political controversy rather than a judicial tribunal.

7. Because, viewing the last objection from another angle, if it is the desire to take from the courts the power to declare acts of the legislature void as unconstitutional, then this should be done directly and honestly by amending the constitution and declaring that the legislature should be the final judge of the constitutionality of its own acts. It should not be done indirectly and dishonestly by holding a club over the heads of the judges.

8. Because in California one of the principal evils in our judicial system no longer exists, i. e., the election of a judge on a partisan ticket. He will no longer feel bound to decide these constitutional political questions in favor of the party which has seated him upon the bench. (Statutes 1911, ch. 398.)

9. Because in California another glaring evil of our judicial system has been removed, i. e., the nomination of judges in political conventions where their choice was often neglected entirely by the delegates, who were interested chiefly in the more engrossing executive and legislative offices, and where the judges were as often