Jim Billings, the system is designed to be illusory on the judges. Not even the Republican Party leaders can answer your questions as they too are in a quandary, and have asked me the same questions.
Generally, there is never an outsider challenger to a sitting judge. The reason for this is that only those who carry the title of nobility (forbidden by the U.S. Constitution) of esq. may run. And should one dare to run, woe be unto him if he does not win, for then he must appear as a lawyer in front of the very person he challenged for his seat. Basically, that lawyer must consider it the end of their career.
Almost without exception, when a judge does decide to retire, he does so just before his time is up so that the governor my seat a new judge. Then, when the election takes place, he is listed on the ballot as an "incumbent judges," which, as a practical matter, always wins the election.
There is a very purposeful plan being carried out when it comes to judges. This is because they know that if you can control the judges, you can control all the rest of government.
Now why is it that the electorate is kept in the dark when it comes to judicial candidates? Knowledge is power, and the objective is to keep the electorate ignorant when it comes to who to vote for. When it comes to voters and judges, they follow the ingredient of of raising mushrooms; "feed'em sh_t, and keep'em in the dark. Gee, from the voters perspective a name is a name, and if he is listed on the ballot as an incumbent, then he must know what he is doing, so like in any communistic country, just punch the name, even if it be the only name on the ballot. It's called "a choice of one."
I have advised even those in the Republican Party, and those who asked me such as you have, to just vote "No confidence" in respect to judges on the ballot. This means you will be better off to not vote ignorantly for an unknown. Remember, in a later recall effort of that judge, you need only a percentage of the votes by which he was elected to the bench within that county. If he only got one thousand votes to get him elected, it may only take less than a hundred signatures to start a recall of him.
Hopefully, this advice will be of assistance to you.
-Ron Branson

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:44 PM
To: E Mailing
Subject: Who are the judges on the ballot?
Importance: High

Mr Branson
Why is it that the ballot for some judges running for certain jurisdictions contain only one name? What iss the purpose of voting if there is no selection? At other times you may see three judges running for office.  I have yet to see one that I am familiar with. As a citizen I cannot get background information on any judge running for office. Where do they come from? Who puts them on the ballot? Who decides there term?  How in the world can anyone vote for someone they know nothing about?
If you have any information on this I would love to here about it.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006

South Dakota Vote Fraud
FTC Comments on the Definition of the Practice of Law

Responses to Articles and Shows

Join J.A.I.L.
Donate To J.A.I.L.
Buy A J.A.I.L. T-Shirt & Bumper Sticker
State and Federal Sites
Black Collar Crime
J.A.I.L. News Journal
Judicial Horror Stories
Branson's Legal Briefs
National J.A.I.L. Contacts and Groups
Animated Introduction
Spread The Word
J.A.I.L. Constitution & By Laws
Mission Statement
J.A.I.L. Cannot Give Legal Advice
Website Comments
Current Events
Links Of Common Interest
Yahoo Group