The New York Times Criticizes Judicial Election Processes

In a recent editorial, The New York Times argues the current judicial selection method of electing high state court judges makes the judiciary more susceptible to influence by campaign donors. Because a sizable percentage of campaign funding comes from lawyers, lobbyists, and business interests with deep pockets, the editorial suggests overall judicial impartiality has been compromised with the election of candidates who favor big businesses or take legal positions that corporations favor. To remedy this, the New York Times suggests judges should be appointed through merit selection.