Understanding Judicial Candidate Evaluations
Constitutionally, a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not to legislate or set policy. Therefore, iVoterGuide’s judicial ratings are based on our assessment of how a candidate will apply the law. For instance, originalists generally believe they must apply the law exactly as written, whereas activists tend to believe that the interpretation of law can vary over time and according to changes in societal norms.
-
Proven Originalist—The evidence consistently and strongly indicates the candidate believes laws should always be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
-
Originalist—The evidence consistently indicates the candidate believes laws should always be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
-
Leans Originalist—The evidence overall indicates the candidate believes laws should be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
-
Moderate—The evidence does not indicate whether the candidate believes laws can change over time.
-
Leans Activist—The evidence overall indicates the candidate does not believe laws should always be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
-
Activist—The evidence indicates the candidate does not believe laws should always be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
-
Proven Activist—The evidence strongly indicates the candidate does not believe laws should always be interpreted according to their objective original meaning.
The decisions judges make can have profound effects on your life, your state, and society as a whole. It is crucial to know whether their decisions will be grounded in the law as written, or whether their interpretation of the law will be based on personal values and societal norms. Our judicial ratings can help you make an informed decision on these often-overlooked candidates who possess such great responsibility.
