Super Tuesday it ain't. Cities around the Commonwealth go to the polls today, but the big excitement seems to be in other places. To be sure, today is a big day for Maura Hennigan and her supporters (most of whom, from what Bostonist can tell, live along the Jamaicaway and have the most gi-normous lawn signs ever). But Bostonist still doesn't know quite what it is that makes Councilor Hennigan a better choice than Tom Menino (nor a worse choice, for that matter). We know where she stands on debates and the practice by incumbents of discouraging campaign contributions to their rivals, but not so much what would be debated or why people would want to make contributions to her in the first place. (Let us not make too much light of the Boston mayoral race. A great many people care about the matter, and rightly so. It's just that, when it comes to comprehensive coverage of such things, Bostonist knows when we are outmatched.) (Then again, we could be worse: check out this awesome, super-generic elections information webpage, apparently written by drunk foreigners.)
What Bostonist likes most about this round of elections, on the national level, is how much all the stuff going on in the rest of the country makes us love our little Bay State. We're especially happy that, among all the semi-anonymous councillors and aldermen and school board members on our ballots, there are no judges. Mass. is one of the few, the proud, the twelve states that don't elect judges, and Bostonist likes it that way, thank you very much. Why? Read on . . .
Let us look to another Commonwealth, Pennsylvania, where supreme court judges face votes of no-confidence every ten years. Apparently, voters there are so fed up with the fact that legislators gave themselves a huge pay raise, they are going to express their displeasure by voting two judges out of office. If that makes you say, "whuh?", Bostonist is with you.
In more judge election madness, Texans vote on a constitutional amendment to add members to the state's commission on judicial conduct, a step that seems more and more necessary. Lately, you may have heard, it has become the practice in that free and easy state not to let Democratic judges preside over the criminal trials of prominent Republicans, which can be problematic.
So as you try to choose from among the many candidates today, think long and hard, treat your weighty civic responsibility with due respect, and thank your lucky stars you live in Massachusetts and don't have to vote for judges.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
