1. In light of the Persky recall, here are some studies on the impact of elections on judicial behavior. The story is consistent: elections make judges harsher, and there may be other costs as well (like lower-skilled people becoming judges).
2. Here’s evidence from Washington showing that judges impose longer sentences as elections near: faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/yuchtman/Noam_… 
3. Here’s evidence from Pennsylvania that elections resulted in nearly 3,000 additional years of incarceration over 10 years: nyu.edu/gsas/dept/poli…
4. Here’s evidence that impending elections increase the risk that someone convicted of murder will be executed by 15%: scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten…
5. The Persky recall might not lead to many more recalls, but it will certainly make judges more nervous as their regularly-scheduled elections near—and nervous judges are harsh judges.
6. We shouldn’t elect our judges. We are basically the only country that does this, which is a pretty clear sign its a bad idea.
And if we shouldn’t elect them, we shouldn’t seek out ways to make those electoral pressures worse.
That’s what happened yesterday.
And if we shouldn’t elect them, we shouldn’t seek out ways to make those electoral pressures worse.
That’s what happened yesterday.
7. And who will bear the brunt of this unavoidable increase in harshness?
The people who are disproportionately already appearing before the judges: poor people of color.
The people who are disproportionately already appearing before the judges: poor people of color.
8. Forgot to add this intriguing insight: elections (compared to appointment) seem to lead to people with lower human capital selecting in to becoming judges. Elections lead to less competent jurists: people.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/gradio/…
