There are plenty of issues on which Steve Gottwalt (R) and I disagree but the process of governance works best when you find those issues that you do agree upon and work together. Such is the case with House File 224.
I question the need to put a Constitutional Amendment out there for what appears to be no other reason than reacting or over reacting to the current recount process. However, the one piece of the legislation that I think is common sense is the formation of retention elections for judges in the state.
As it is, there are very few people in the state who pay even the slightest attention to judicial candidates on the ballot. My theory has always been that if I haven't heard of them then they must be doing just fine and deserve to remain seated. A retention election would essentially put my theory into practice. Rather than a process by which people use any number of schemes to pick their judicial vote, they can simply decide yes or no on should this person keep their seat. Let's hope this bill gets the attention it deserves...
I question the need to put a Constitutional Amendment out there for what appears to be no other reason than reacting or over reacting to the current recount process. However, the one piece of the legislation that I think is common sense is the formation of retention elections for judges in the state.
As it is, there are very few people in the state who pay even the slightest attention to judicial candidates on the ballot. My theory has always been that if I haven't heard of them then they must be doing just fine and deserve to remain seated. A retention election would essentially put my theory into practice. Rather than a process by which people use any number of schemes to pick their judicial vote, they can simply decide yes or no on should this person keep their seat. Let's hope this bill gets the attention it deserves...
