In the final irony, Justice Durham is now stepping aside to take a position on the federal bench, where her lifetime appointment will effectively insulate her from political pressures. In the meantime, the Court has become another victim of the radical politicization of public service that has occurred in the last 10 years. The Court has become addicted to political conflict and political process. Candidates for the Supreme Court run in the politically charged atmosphere of legislative and local elections. Although judicial races are nonpartisan, judges run alongside party-identified candidates for state legislator, local water district commissioner, city auditor, Congress, county prosecutor and every other political office.
Judicial candidates can suffer or benefit from the buzz created by partisan political candidates.
Despite judicial conduct rules against making campaign promises, the judicial candidate can use identification with contentious issues and polarizing party candidates as an election springboard. Unfortunately, if the judicial candidate wins, he or she effectively takes the bench owing a political debt. Judicial races, however, are nonpartisan for a reason, and no judicial candidate should be placed in the position of even appearing to owe a political debt. Candidate ratings from interest groups can also create the impression of a political debt. Currently, judicial candidates seek ratings from organizations which identify themselves with particular issues and constituencies.