➡️ 2026 - February 11th - Op-Ed: Maryland Can’t Claim to Protect Judicial Independence While Stripping Voters of Their Only Check

With House Bill 150, the Maryland General Assembly is once again advancing legislation to take away a constitutional right Marylanders have exercised for more than 150 years: the right to vote for circuit court judges.

This renewed effort comes at a moment that should alarm anyone who cares about judicial independence. Just days ago, The Baltimore Sun reported that Gov. Wes Moore said his administration has been “working with judges” to prepare for anticipated legal challenges to his redistricting proposal—remarks that immediately raised ethical red flags among legal scholars and elected officials across the political spectrum.

These two developments are not isolated. Together, they reveal a troubling trajectory: the increasing politicization of Maryland’s judiciary at the same time the legislature seeks to eliminate the only meaningful check the public has on that system—the vote.

Maryland’s Constitution of 1867 deliberately preserved popular elections for circuit court judges. The framers rejected the idea of vesting absolute appointment power in a governor, understanding a basic truth of democracy: even well-intentioned politicians are subject to political pressure, ambition, and expediency. Judicial elections were meant to serve as a safeguard—not to inject partisanship into the courts, but to ensure accountability and public confidence.

That safeguard is now under threat.

Proponents of eliminating contested judicial elections argue that appointments coupled with Soviet-style “yes or no” retention votes will somehow insulate judges from politics. But recent events suggest precisely the opposite. When a governor openly discusses “working with judges” to make a controversial redistricting effort more legally viable—an effort aimed at reshaping congressional maps to achieve a preferred political outcome—it underscores how deeply political forces already surround judicial selection and influence. Replacing contested elections with so-called retention elections would only trade real accountability for a hollow substitute: voters would be asked to rubber-stamp judges they had no role in choosing, in elections designed to produce foregone conclusions rather than genuine democratic consent. The result isn’t independence—it’s the illusion of democracy, a checkbox exercise that strips citizens of meaningful choice while preserving the very political insiders the system claims to restrain.

As University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber correctly noted, asking judges how they might rule on pending or anticipated litigation crosses a serious ethical line. Even if conversations involve retired judges, the appearance of impropriety matters. Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on actual independence, but on the perception of independence.  That concern alone should give legislators pause before further concentrating appointment power in the executive branch.

And yet, at this very moment—while concerns about executive overreach and judicial politicization dominate headlines—the legislature is pressing forward with a bill that would permanently remove voters from the process.

This would be unprecedented. To my knowledge, never in Maryland’s history has the General Assembly stripped its citizens of a voting right. Not during times of war. Not during political upheaval. Not during previous reform efforts. Doing so now, when voting rights are under strain nationwide, sends exactly the wrong message.

Supporters of this change often claim that voters are insufficiently informed to make judicial choices. That argument is not only paternalistic—it is dangerous. The Constitution does not condition the right to vote on expertise or knowledge. We do not impose literacy tests or civics exams, nor should we. When the public lacks information, the remedy is education and transparency, not disenfranchisement.

The irony is stark. If Maryland truly seeks to reduce politics in the judiciary, it should be expanding accountability and public trust—not eliminating them. Removing elections does not eliminate political influence; it merely obscures it, placing judicial careers almost entirely in the hands of a single political actor and insulating that process from public scrutiny.

Checks and balances are not inconveniences. They are the foundation of democratic legitimacy.

At a time when concerns about autocracy, erosion of democratic norms, and consolidation of power are widely shared across the political spectrum, Maryland should be reaffirming the role of its citizens—not sidelining them.

The people of Maryland are not the problem. They are the safeguard.

If judicial selection truly needs reform, it deserves a comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive conversation—not a rushed effort to take away a constitutional right while the judiciary itself is drawn deeper into political controversy.

Maryland cannot credibly claim to defend judicial independence while simultaneously weakening democracy’s most basic check: the will of the voters.  Because here, right matters.  At least it should, anyway.

 

Posted on 11 Feb 2026, 18:36 - Category: News