Having New Jersey's Supreme Court justices face reelection would make the jurists beholden to the people they serve, making them prisoners of party politics, and hostages to fund-raising and vote-seeking campaigns.
We shudder to think that Supreme Court judges in New Jersey could soon be looking over their shoulders each time they make a ruling, sweating that the state's citizens will unceremoniously dump them when the next election rolls around.
But that's the likely scenario under a measure two state lawmakers are proposing.
Sens. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen) and Michael Doherty (R-Warren) are seeking a constitutional amendment that will allow voters to give their stamp of approval for the state's highest judges every four years.
The two men say the move would make the judges accountable to the people they serve.
On the contrary, the arrangement would make the jurists beholden to the people they serve, making them prisoners of party politics, and hostages to fund-raising and vote-seeking campaigns.
Vote: Should voters decide if N.J. justices should keep their jobs?
All of which would undermine the stellar -- and hard-won -- national reputation New Jersey's Supreme Court has long enjoyed.
As stands now, the governor nominates the court's seven justices, who are subject to state Senate approval. After seven years, the governor has the option to reappoint them - again, with Senate approval - and they receive tenure until they reach 70, the mandatory age for retirement.
Under the Cardinale/Doherty scheme, the job of appointing judges would remain in the hands of the governor, but the terms would be reduced to four years, and the decision on reappointment would shift to the electorate.
On its face, this seems to be an appealing idea. Why not have judges answer to the ultimate users of the judicial system: the people?
But in reality, judges are not politicians. They cannot - and should not - make bargains with the voters in order to keep their jobs.
The London-based news magazine The Economist makes that powerful argument in a 2014 essay:
"It is an abuse of power for a judge to promise - or even hint - that he will decide future cases on any basis other than the facts and the law. Standing for election gives judges an incentive to smile on people voters like and get tough on those they hate."
This is hardly a recipe for impartiality, the publication points out.
Nor does it inspire confidence in and respect for our judiciary, we would add.
True, the existing system has been known to have its faults. For example, in 2010 it allowed Gov. Chris Christie to oust Justice John Wallace, a Democrat and well-regarded jurist, in his rush to give the court a more conservative bent.
But even this gubernatorial misstep is preferable to forcing sitting judges to face re-election every four years, with all the hand-shaking, back-slapping and money-hustling that process entails.
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.