Judicial candidates are not allowed to campaign like everyone else. You're not even allowed to know what party they are. When they hold forums you will hear I'm not allowed to answer that more than you will get an answer.
You are not allowed to know them, especially the ones that you vote for.
Here are the coined phrases so that people know while it is definitely not enough.
If they volunteer with the youth ranches they are Republicans.
If they are big brothers and big sisters they are usually Democrats. I work in politics and those are the key phrases.
And I find most of the Democrats gay running for judge. But the Republicans hang around the sheriff youth ranches where there is lots of trouble. They move sheriffs around the country like priests in trouble.
Now you see how they built up our judicial system and why they rule the way that they do!
Judicial candidates are not allowed to campaign like everyone else. You're not even allowed to know what party they are. When they hold forums you will hear I'm not allowed to answer that more than you will get an answer.
You are not allowed to know them, especially the ones that you vote for.
Here are the coined phrases so that people know while it is definitely not enough.
If they volunteer with the youth ranches they are Republicans.
If they are big brothers and big sisters they are usually Democrats. I work in politics and those are the key phrases.
And I find most of the Democrats gay running for judge. But the Republicans hang around the sheriff youth ranches where there is lots of trouble. They move sheriffs around the country like priests in trouble.
Now you see how they built up our judicial system and why they rule the way that they do!
But is this good?
Are voters asked to vote about judges retention simply to give the appearance that the people have a say about them?
Should the default vote when you don't know be No instead of Yes to retain?