This is so beautifully timely. I just voted in Maryland less than two hours ago and cringed when I got to the judges because I completely forgot about them and had done zero research on them. Not that I probably could have done any easy research anyway - it's not like the judges have campaign websites that tell me how they ruled on key cases with evidence that they ruled justly and fairly. If I had seen even a single campaign sign for them, I would have at least remembered they existed.
I voted yes for them both but then started to have regrets. I grew up hearing the saying "when in doubt, vote them out!" and wondered if I should have done that instead, or just left it completely blank because I shouldn't allow my lack of knowledge to sway the election. I considered requesting a new ballot but was worried that if I did that I would be standing there for the next hour trying to decide, so I moved on with my yeses, but I admit that I was/am nervous because I'm not sure if Maryland's judges have become partisan like the US Supreme Court.
I was happy to vote for Question 1 to change the name of the highest court in MD from the MD Court of Appeals to the MD Supreme Court and the second highest court from MD Court of Special Appeals to Appellate Court of MD, because I, too, get confused about which court is which because the names are different, and I've studied urban planning and land development law! But Question 5 threw me for a loop (why am I voting for the qualifications of another county's circuit court judges!? WTF is orphan's court anyway?) so I voted against it.
All of that said, I'm really glad you posted this interview this morning! A lot of it went over my head so I plan to reread it at least a few more times in the coming days so that it sinks in. I think that's why this stuff is so hard - so many folks haven't had civics/government courses since high school and the knowledge disappears.
A delightful interview. I am so glad I signed up for your Substack. I am certainly not part of your usual demographic; but your style is so straight forward and refreshing, I am happy to have found you.
I love the line “everything important in life.” I voted two days ago in Pennsylvania (I guess actually it was three days ago) at it is really important to remember both that line and the importance of the ideals of impartial justice. 
Wow, such a beautiful interview -- thanks so much for running it. Now I am missing my mom, who was also a Midwesterner. The description of the process that judges use to arrive at decisions was illuminating; and her remarks about the work that goes into government more generally made me think of all the invisible labor we so often take for granted.
Judges have a lot of leeway to render opinion where case law is absent of vague. This has always made them social arbiters in democracies. So, what many call ‘Partisan’ rulings are simply social arbitrations they don’t agree with. In a complex, fast-changing society, we should all focus more than ever on who gets on the bench at the county and state level.
I really love that you didn't edit out the personal bits of this q&a. Really, really love.
This is so beautifully timely. I just voted in Maryland less than two hours ago and cringed when I got to the judges because I completely forgot about them and had done zero research on them. Not that I probably could have done any easy research anyway - it's not like the judges have campaign websites that tell me how they ruled on key cases with evidence that they ruled justly and fairly. If I had seen even a single campaign sign for them, I would have at least remembered they existed.
I voted yes for them both but then started to have regrets. I grew up hearing the saying "when in doubt, vote them out!" and wondered if I should have done that instead, or just left it completely blank because I shouldn't allow my lack of knowledge to sway the election. I considered requesting a new ballot but was worried that if I did that I would be standing there for the next hour trying to decide, so I moved on with my yeses, but I admit that I was/am nervous because I'm not sure if Maryland's judges have become partisan like the US Supreme Court.
I was happy to vote for Question 1 to change the name of the highest court in MD from the MD Court of Appeals to the MD Supreme Court and the second highest court from MD Court of Special Appeals to Appellate Court of MD, because I, too, get confused about which court is which because the names are different, and I've studied urban planning and land development law! But Question 5 threw me for a loop (why am I voting for the qualifications of another county's circuit court judges!? WTF is orphan's court anyway?) so I voted against it.
All of that said, I'm really glad you posted this interview this morning! A lot of it went over my head so I plan to reread it at least a few more times in the coming days so that it sinks in. I think that's why this stuff is so hard - so many folks haven't had civics/government courses since high school and the knowledge disappears.
A delightful interview. I am so glad I signed up for your Substack. I am certainly not part of your usual demographic; but your style is so straight forward and refreshing, I am happy to have found you.
I love the line “everything important in life.” I voted two days ago in Pennsylvania (I guess actually it was three days ago) at it is really important to remember both that line and the importance of the ideals of impartial justice. 
This is SO GOOD, thank you
It looks like Justice Gustafson will be staying on the Montana Supreme Court. And also the 'born alive' ballot measure isn't going to win.
Wow, such a beautiful interview -- thanks so much for running it. Now I am missing my mom, who was also a Midwesterner. The description of the process that judges use to arrive at decisions was illuminating; and her remarks about the work that goes into government more generally made me think of all the invisible labor we so often take for granted.
Such a fascinating and somehow soothing read.
Judges have a lot of leeway to render opinion where case law is absent of vague. This has always made them social arbiters in democracies. So, what many call ‘Partisan’ rulings are simply social arbitrations they don’t agree with. In a complex, fast-changing society, we should all focus more than ever on who gets on the bench at the county and state level.
As a Kansan, this is a fascinating read!!