- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Question about the election of Louisiana Supreme Court Justices
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:27 pm
Louisiana has seven justices in the state supreme court, each of whom is from a different "district" in the state. See below image:
These justices have statewide jurisdiction and issue rulings that affect people and businesses not only within their respective "districts," but throughout the entire state as well.
However, when it comes time to elect a justice for one of the seven districts, only those who reside within that justice's particular district can vote. For instance, I live in District 7, so I can vote for the three candidates running for that seat, but I cannot vote for the two candidates vying for the District 4 seat. This would make more sense for elections of local - even appellate court - judges, whose jurisdiction is limited to some extent. But, I cannot understand the rationale for not having statewide elections for state supreme court justices.
Does anyone happen to know the policy behind this?
These justices have statewide jurisdiction and issue rulings that affect people and businesses not only within their respective "districts," but throughout the entire state as well.
However, when it comes time to elect a justice for one of the seven districts, only those who reside within that justice's particular district can vote. For instance, I live in District 7, so I can vote for the three candidates running for that seat, but I cannot vote for the two candidates vying for the District 4 seat. This would make more sense for elections of local - even appellate court - judges, whose jurisdiction is limited to some extent. But, I cannot understand the rationale for not having statewide elections for state supreme court justices.
Does anyone happen to know the policy behind this?
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 5:15 pm
3
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:34 pm to brewhan davey
I would imagine the policy is to ensure the LASC can be comprised of 7 people from various parts of the state vs. 7 people from just a few cities/areas. Particularly in light of the fact the majority of the population lives in South LA. If you are a person in Jackson parish do you want 7 people from the NOLA and/or BR metro area making all the rulings?
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:36 pm to brewhan davey
My guess is that it was done intentionally so that one or two massive population centers wouldn’t control the judiciary.
It has its pluses and its minuses. Doing this at the district level means that one side can’t pack the court but means Trudy White will be a judge until she dies or goes to prison.
It has its pluses and its minuses. Doing this at the district level means that one side can’t pack the court but means Trudy White will be a judge until she dies or goes to prison.
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:38 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
Does anyone happen to know the policy behind this
Very simple, and along the same lines of why the Electoral College exists on the federal level.
The LASC would be absolutely dominated by New Orleans and BR judges if every seat on the court was subject to a statewide vote. A geographically-varied representation ensures that all portions of the state are represented, and not just the population centers.
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:38 pm to Alt26
quote:
I would imagine the policy is to ensure the LASC can be comprised of 7 people from various parts of the state vs. 7 people from just a few cities/areas. Particularly in light of the fact the majority of the population lives in South LA. If you are a person in Jackson parish do you want 7 people from the NOLA and/or BR metro area making all the rulings?
I understand the policy behind having a court comprised of justices from different districts. My question was why aren't elections of those justices open to voters outside of their districts?
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:39 pm to teke184
Same thing as a representative elected from a district but votes on bills affecting the entire state
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:39 pm to teke184
quote:
My guess is that it was done intentionally so that one or two massive population centers wouldn’t control the judiciary.
This makes some sense, but that's assuming that the major population centers consist of people who regularly vote.
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:40 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
This makes some sense, but that's assuming that the major population centers consist of people who regularly vote.
It is a very good assumption, judging by the results of the last two gubernatorial races.
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:40 pm to tigerdude12
quote:
Same thing as a representative elected from a district but votes on bills affecting the entire state
This is a good analogy.
I guess my underlying problem lies with the fact that judges in our state are elected to begin with.
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:42 pm to brewhan davey
Well, sorry charlie, that’s a critical tenet of the civil law system.
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:43 pm to brewhan davey
quote:
I guess my underlying problem lies with the fact that judges in our state are elected to begin with.
I am with you there. Although every time I am ready to ditch the concept, I remember who would be making the appointments.
I could support moving to an appointment system, but only if the appointment had a time limit and that person could not be appointed twice to the same position. Make the terms 10 or 15 years or so.
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:44 pm to kingbob
quote:
Well, sorry charlie, that’s a critical tenet of the civil law system.
It may be a mainstay of Louisiana's civil law system, but not inherently so. That is just how we have done it. There is nothing structural in our legal system that would prevent a change to an appointed state judiciary.
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I am with you there. Although every time I am ready to ditch the concept, I remember who would be making the appointments.
When you're right, you're right.
quote:
I could support moving to an appointment system, but only if the appointment had a time limit and that person could not be appointed twice to the same position. Make the terms 10 or 15 years or so.
I like this idea. Unfortunately, there is no chance of it ever happening.
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 4:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There is nothing structural in our legal system that would prevent a change to an appointed state judiciary.
Article 5, Section 22 of the Louisiana Constitution provides that all judges shall be elected.
This post was edited on 10/7/20 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/7/20 at 5:02 pm to brewhan davey
So, what is being described by the OP is judges elected “from-district” rather than “by-district” if I remember correctly. Any legal reason this couldn’t be done?
Posted on 10/7/20 at 5:20 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Very simple, and along the same lines of why the Electoral College exists on the federal level.
As I mentioned in another post, this is a good analogy (re: election of someone to serve as the area representative for statewide policy).
However, one big difference about electing judges with statewide jurisdiction is that, under our state's constitution, judges are not subject to recall elections.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News