|
NORTHERN EXPRESS OCTOBER 21, 2004
Judging Judges: How do You take the Guesswork out of Choosing a Candidate?
Vincent Hancock
Five days before Super Tuesday, Leland High School will stage its annual Mock Election and Rally. Students from six area schools will participate, amid festive decorations and mock campaign ads. “Some of them are even better than the professional commercials,” says Ed Wodek, social studies instructor and organizer of the event.
There will also be choices to make. Dozens of students will play real political candidates at every level, following two months of discussion, research, and consultation with their real-life counterparts. Taking the stage, the students will translate everything they’ve learned into timed speeches that explain how their election will make the world a better place.
But two of the real candidates for elected office will be exempted from this engaging exercise, partly because the young impersonators might get lost in nuance, or silence. After all, these candidates are restricted from declaring future intentions. “What will they say about their records,” asks Wodek. “It gets real dicey.”
Which candidates defy interpretation, while seeking a job more relevant to your daily life than most other elected officials?
You’ll find them on your non-partisan ballot: Barbara Budros and John Foresman. They’re competing for Judge Thomas Gilbert’s open seat on the 86th District Court. The winner could fine you, jail you, and make you deal with an angry landlord.
While teacher Ed Wodek wants his students to appreciate the judicial branch -- both real candidates are scheduled to speak and answer questions – non-partisan political philosophy can’t compete with controversial topics. “For some of the students, learning who’s running or what the major issues are, is difficult enough,” says Wodek. “I don’t even know if half of adults can disassociate themselves from single-issue thinking.”
LABELS & FACTS
Barbara Budros often struggles with voters’ questions. “The very first one,” she says, “is, ‘are you a Republican or are you a Democrat?’ Pro-life or pro-choice? That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with being a judge, and being able to impartially assess facts and apply law as written to those facts.”
John Foresman also shies from taking any partisan position. As a former probate judge, he says his rulings were made strictly based on the evidence before him. “I make the decision that I believe is justified by the facts and the law, or is in the best interest of justice. I think I’ve been able to do that.”
Such talk is all rhetoric for Harold Spaeth, research professor of law at Michigan State University. “Of course they look at facts, but the facts don’t speak for themselves,” he says. “There’s no question – they still have discretion.”
While Spaeth is wary of judicial campaign speech, he’s no fan of the system.”That’s the problem with non-partisan elections,” he says. “You don’t really have any information. You don’t have any party identification. It’s difficult to get information because very little is published. Judicial candidates aren’t exactly known for vigorous campaigns. So what’s the poor voter to do?”
The poor voter’s problems are multiple. Beyond Budros and Foresman, other candidates need your vote to gain or keep seats on the bench.
|
