Dispute on a Popular Election of Judges in American Public Discourse during Period of “Jacksonian Democracy”

Abstract

The article presents the debate that took place between supporters and opponents of popular election of judges in the United States during the so-called “jacksonian democracy” (also called populist democracy) from the early thirties of the 19th century to the outbreak of the Civil War. Starting from the presidency Andrew Jackson, the political fight between mere people represented by the Democratic Party, and the elites whose interests defended the Whigs Party took place in the US. The subject of the dispute has become a demand for a broader participation of the people to exercise power and democratization of the existing oligarchic republic, through the extension of electoral rights and widespread elections as methods of casting most public office. One of the subjects of the dispute during the state constitutional conventions was the issue of popular elections of judges. The implementation of popular election system demanded Democrats emphasizing the importance of democratic legitimacy for the independence of the judiciary and the development of the Judicial Review. Against the popular elections of judges were Whigs convinced that this will lead to the fall of authority of the judiciary and make it subject of Parties' competition. The author indicates that the debate ended with the victory of democrat postulates and introducing the popular election of judges in most states. However, lawyers participating in constitutional conventions, representing both Democrats and Whigs, have introduced a number of institutions ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the possibility of effective implementation of the judicial review. Political changes from the period of Jakcson’s democracy have contributed to raising the authority of the judges and strengthened the role of judiciary in the American political system.