I just received this email from the Tennessee Bar Association a few minutes ago

Judges show restraint by not answering campaign questions

TBA President Larry Wilks today applauded the “judicial restraint” that resulted in the low response rate to the questionnaire fostered by the Family Action Council of Tennessee. The “voter guide,” which was published last night on Chattanoogan.com, carries responses from only four of the 64 judges and judicial candidates who received the survey. Even judges who are shown as responding to the questions — which include evolution and other possible controversial issues — declined to answer most of the questions because they considered them inappropriate. Twenty-four of the judges responded by letter and without responding to the survey.

“It is precisely because we believe that it is inappropriate to respond to such questionnaires that the TBA has been such a strong backer of the formal judicial performance evaluation of appeals judges,” said Wilks. The TBA has continued to urge voters to use the evaluation, which is based upon surveys of litigants, jurors, lawyers and the public, because it is a credible and unbiased assessment of each appellate judge’s performance.

As to local judicial races, Wilks noted that friends, family, and neighbors often turn to lawyers to help in evaluating how to vote. He urged TBA members to give their careful, professional view on judicial races. “Every member of the public should be as informed as possible in order to avoid being mislead by special interests,” said Wilks.

I’m honestly not a fan of such questionnaire’s, either (the link noted in the email is here). It is inappropriate for any judge to answer questions that may tip off his or her decision or bias on a matter that may come before the court. I know this isn’t necessarily a popular position with some fellow conservatives, but it’s a good way to keep the judiciary independent where lifetime appointments are not in play. The retention votes can certainly be based on judicial decisions, but jumping the gun with a questionnaire is unnecessary.

Appellate level judges, if acting sufficiently against the people’s wishes, can in fact be removed. If any decision is against a group’s positions, they certainly can lobby to defeat a particular jurist. In fact, one of the most recent and contentious judicial elections occurred in West Virginia just a couple of years go, where a sitting Supreme Court justice was defeated. It’s not impossible.