Election: How do you judge a local judge?

United States Supreme Court decisions have understandably been at the top of everyone's mind in recent months. Decisions made in our nation's highest court do trickle down to touch every American, not only with its current decisions but how those decisions will set precedent for future ones. All eyes should be on our courts.

However, when you are arrested, it is not the U.S. Supreme Court you will appear before. You will stand in front of one of the judges in your county. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "Ninety-five percent of all cases are filed in state courts, and state supreme courts are typically the final word on state law."

One of the hard parts about understanding the impact of our local judicial races is that each state does it differently. You have to be civically engaged and you have to do your homework. You have to care enough. The Brennan Center for Justice also reports that "Most states use elections as some part of their selection process -- 39 states use some form of election at some level of court."

But even then, the role of these elections varies state to state. In 16 states, judges are appointed by the governor and reselected in unopposed retention elections. In 14 states, including Kentucky where I live, judges are selected in contested nonpartisan elections, which means voters cannot rely on party lines to select their judge. In eight states, judges are selected in contested partisan elections, so party-line voters can lean on that crutch.

It's no wonder many are calling for judicial election reform. A judge's purpose is to interpret the law, not influence it through party-line bias. But we hear it in the news all the time. We watch it unfold over Supreme Court candidate questioning. People want to know where a judge stands on the major issues.

Partisan judicial voting allows bias to seep into the election when our judges should be referees, not game-players. If a referee were to show up to a sporting match rooting for a specific team, fans would be suspicious of their fairness.

This year in my county, every judicial seat is on the ballot for midterm elections. Who we vote for now will sit on the bench for up to eight years. I'm grateful that judicial elections in my state are nonpartisan. I've spent the last several months researching and talking to judge candidates for every court level in Kentucky in an effort to understand candidates' qualifications and judicial philosophies for local publication.

Judges see people on the worst days of their lives.

How does a candidate for judge plan to protect the dignity of every person who walks into their courtroom?

How does a judge ensure any warrant they sign is accurate and in the best interest of public safety?

How do they feel about bail reform?

Do they think juries are equitable and representative of the community they serve?

Does the Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court think all judicial opinions should be published and available for precedent? Why or why not?

Each and every one of these questions is important and the public deserves to understand how their state's judicial system affects their daily lives. We cannot complain about the protocols of our high courts while turning a blind eye to how our local courts operate.

The results of our local elections and appointments trickle up to the highest courts of the land. Don't wait until you are arrested to consider what you should know about the person you will appear before in court. Do your homework now. Your local elections matter.