Shorter terms discourage qualified attorneys from applying. Shorter retention terms, with the lesser job security they entail, will discourage highly qualified judicial applicants. This will be especially true for experienced and successful private practitioners. The result of SJR 22 and SB159 may be a lesser qualified judiciary with less experience representing private citizens and businesses. Increased numbers of judges on the ballot decrease voters' scrutiny of individual judges.
Voters already have limited time to study information on judges standing for retention.
Increasing the numbers of judges on the ballot would only exacerbate that problem. Shorter retention terms increase costs. An integral part of retention elections is the retention evaluation process. The Judicial Council gathers extensive information on each judge or justice and provides that information to the voters so that they can make informed retention decisions. Increasing the frequency of retention elections would increase the costs of the evaluation or, in the alternative, lead to a less intensive evaluation.