This is the Cato Daily podcast for Tuesday, November 5th, 2024.

I'm Caleb Brown. Judges might be on your ballot this election day.

Odds are, you don't know much about them.

Is there a better way to pick judges at the state level?

Clint Bullock is a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court.

We spoke in Phoenix about what he sees as a better way to pick judges.

There has been some controversy with respect to U.S. Supreme Court justices recently.

I don't know if you followed it.

But in particular, this suggestion that multiple

justices have inappropriately accepted some gifts. Naturally, what this means is we need to expand

the Supreme Court. We need term limits on Supreme Court justices. And my first thought was,

isn't there a procedure built into the U.S. Constitution for dealing with judges who are doing

things that you find objectionable? Oh, of course. And of course there is. Yes. But that's not what

we hear. And it makes me think if you compare federal judges to state judges, well, in many states,

it couldn't be more different in terms of how judges are selected.

And so I wonder, well, what are your thoughts about, you know, what a judge's role ought to be and how attenuated

should the process be for them for selecting them from some sort of straight democratic process?

So that's a great question. And states have roughly three different types of selection for judges. One is systems

just like the federal system, where the governor appoints, the Senate confirms, and you're pretty

much set for life. The second, and in my opinion, by far the worst, is partisan elections.

Partisan meaning D or R is next to the judge's name. Exactly. And the reason I think that's

the worst is you shouldn't be affiliated with a party. I mean, obviously you can vote and register in a party, but in terms of

...