Secrecy by judicial candidates is the best way to protect the independent judiciary.  At least that is the view of former Governor Pete Wilson, reports Capitol Weekly.  According to former Gov. Wilson, secrecy will help protect the independent judiciary by keeping judicial candidates' legal views out of politics.  It seems he has it backwards, since the greatest threat to the independent judiciary is the tendency of some judges to insert their political views into the law.

Wilson, in an address to the Judicial Council of California's Commission for Impartial Courts, recommended a Constitutional amendment "to depoliticize the administration of justice in our state courts".  His proposed amendment reads: "Judicial candidates are urged by...the constitution of the state of California to consciously forebear from exercising their right of free speech by refraining to answer any question...which seeks to elicit their views."

Wilson and Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson fear that interest groups who ask judges to fill out questionnaires threaten the impartiality of the court by subjecting judicial candidates to political attacks.  The solution, then, is to shroud judicial candidates under a veil of secrecy.

Wilson's proposal illustrates government's anti-democratic penchant for secrecy, and the inability to tell the symptom from the problem (especially when the problem is government itself).  In a democracy, government policy favors transparency, not secrecy.  A judicial candidate's judicial temperament and jurisprudential views should come as no surprise.  The views of too many judges have proved as surprising and disappointing as the prize at the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks, only with far graver results.

The reality is that too many judges believe that it is their job to sit in ultimate judgment over the wisdom of economic and social policy.  The judicial branch has proved not to be the "weakest branch" envisioned by the Constitutional framers.  The very case that established the power of judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, was deeply embroiled in the politics of the day.  Today is no different.  

Today, too many judges have embraced the view that it is their job to be policy makers and high priests to the cult of the all powerful state.  The answer is limited government and judicial restraint, not secrecy.