Elected judges face re-election pressure that can push decisions away from law

Evidence

That judges would see the world differently on account of their different backgrounds/religions/political ideologies is understandable, but evaluation of the merits of cases through such individualized lenses violates the principle of fairness for the defendant. The issue is even more salient when one recognizes that the U.S. judicial system has a structure where some judges are elected to the bench. If elected judges are concerned about representing the preferences of voters, and if re-election is a concern, it is easy to see how judicial decisions can stray from the letter of the law. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 780

Categorization

• XREF: Ties to the reader’s interest in incentive-driven divergence between professed role (impartial judge) and actual behavior — the electoral incentive channel in institutional settings. — connects to: Impending elections make trial judges sentence criminal defendants more harshly — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 431; Retention elections rarely remove judges because voters lack information about them — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 436; Lower court judges shaped by local politics can blunt a Supreme Court mandate. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1545 (+6 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 780