I searched the web for the origin of the aphorism that “Justice is blind,” but couldn’t find it. If anyone knows, please email me. Apparently even the Online English Thesaurus of Phrases doesn’t know: http://www.phrases.org.uk . The consensus seems to be that the origin lies in artistic representations of the Roman goddess Justitia wearing a blindfold: http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/themis.html .

Because the origin of the concept of blind justice is so vague, it inspires many interpretations of the symbolism (of course, symbolism is by nature vague). Most people interpret the symbol to mean that justice is no respecter of persons; it’s applied equally regardless of individuals’ status. I suspect most people involved today in the American justice system believe our laws and courts apply justice equally, but most of us on the outside—I regret to say—see it differently.

Sidebar: At best, I interpret the phrase “Justice is Blind” to mean that law must not target individuals or classes of individuals: Laws must not be written to punish specific people for their specific acts, nor must laws be written to give special protections that are unavailable to others to specific people or classes of people. Of course, we all can name specific individuals who have inspired laws to punish them specifically (Drew Peterson’s Law enabling hearsay evidence to be admitted in his trial) and classes individuals who have inspired laws to protect them specifically (hate crime laws and special copyright laws for Disney and for pop singers).

Yesterday I voted early. On the ballot were candidates for several circuit judgeships and for the Cook County Sheriff, in other words, some rather critical positions in the justice system. In addition, the ballot asked whether or not about fifty judges should be retained in office. I voted no to all retentions, and I have spoken to other people in the neighborhood who said they planned to do the same.

The retention of people in any office by a binary vote (yes, no) is absurd. Where did this idea come from? Well, a web search didn’t turn up a great deal of information about this issue, either.

It appears that our Founding Fathers wanted judges to be appointed (as some still are), pretty much for life (as in England). (The Federalist Papers include a discussion of the issue). In the mid-19th century a highly politicized Congress and state legislatures decided otherwise: here’s a page from PBS.org with some hints about what might have transpired then: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howdid/ .

This doesn’t answer my question, though: What idiot thought up the idea of voting yes or no on retention of judges in office? (My guess: a judge.)

I don’t know that it’s worth the effort to track the culprit down, though, unless it turns out that someone in American history whom everyone hates now is the guilty party. Then maybe it would be easier to make a change in the policy. (I found a hint that it might have been Pres. Andrew Jackson’s bright idea, and since I have Cherokee ancestors I think he might qualify for the role of whipping boy. He needed the collusion of federal judges to confiscate Cherokee land.)

Why is voting yes or no on retention of lists of judges (by name only, not party, not place of residence, not even law degrees and licenses) stupid? Let me count the ways:

1. Judges in Illinois (and most states) are nominated by a party or appointed by a politician. Once they’re in office, no one pays any attention to what they do on the bench, other than a few local bar associations that sometimes print lists of recommendations.
2. The voters blindly vote yes or no. And this is not supposed to be one of the ways justice is blind.
3. In Illinois, a judge needs 60% yes in order to be retained—60% of the votes cast, not the ballots cast. But most voters simply decline to vote (skip the item on the ballot). Unfortunately, if a voter declines to vote it increases the likelihood that the judge will be retained, because his or her cronies will vote yes.
4. If a 60% majority of voters vote no to a judge’s retention, what happens? Well, it has never happened in Illinois, as far as I can determine.  But I suspect there’s a politician somewhere who would make an interim appointment, someone such as a presiding or senior judge on the circuit. If so, I suspect he simply temporarily reappoints the “not retained” judge, who is probably a golfing buddy.
5. What if all the judges were “not retained,” because all the voters did what I did yesterday—vote no to them all? It’s absurd, isn’t? It’s absurd, because there is no answer to the question. Our wonderful politicians have devised an infallible scheme for cramming the justice system with their cronies.

If you haven’t voted yet, you might want to take a look at a website, such as Choose Your Judges, that provides information about the judges whose names will be on the ballot or contact your local bar association.