And you are correct: the “get the money out ofpolitics” routine is tired.

However, I still would prefer to see judges appointed with the voters having the chance to reject them on regular intervals. I have a hard time thinking that people make informed decisions ons in judicial elections.

To the contrary, this is where the crux of the reformist argument lies. Alabama ranks first in the nation in terms of dollars spent on judicial elections. You can’t listen to the radio or watch t.v. during an election cycle without hearing/seeing vitriolic ads about the judicial candidates. There is, of course, a great deal of question as to just how effective such campaigning is with the general public which, as you rightly point out, is generally apathetic to judicial elections.

The whole stated premise (and I emphasize the word “stated”) of the reformists is to de-politicize the process by removing the money — and thus the advertising — factor. This is McCain-Feingold on a local level, in some respects; let’s solve the problem with the elections by removing the anti-democratic, corrupting influence of money. We both know that doesn’t work, and any problems (real or perceived) should be addressed in a different manner.