Why Should Voters Elect Judges?

Should voters elect judges or should they be appointed? It would be better if a chief executive like a governor, mayor or county executive nominated judges vetted for their professional qualifications and judicial outlook. When it was first introduced, the idea of electing judges was meant as a way to avoid corruption, but it seems to have the opposite effect today. Holding judicial elections requires judges to campaign for their seats, which can adversely impact their ability to make independent verdicts while on the bench.
While campaigning, judges are often pressured into revealing their political and personal opinions and instead of deciding each case’s facts during their judicial rulings they can feel pressured to adhere to those previous disclosures. It can affect their campaign if they do not disclosure their political and personal opinions because people might start to speculate and come up with reasons why the candidate is going to be ineffective as a judge. It can also affect their campaign if their political and personal opinions are revealed because then potential campaign donors can decide whether or not to fund their campaign.
Proponents of elections believe that huge campaign contributions can literally turn judges. Today, there is no limit to the amount of money special interest
There is less television coverage than the other elections and so people don’t always know who the candidates are until they go to the booth to vote. Also, campaign contributions are usually channeled into television ads, which creates a negative tone and are often full of allegations towards their opponent rather than about their own qualifications. So people could end up voting for someone who does not value the same qualities that they do just because they were uninformed and picked it based on some other non-qualifying